NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY JODI JELOUDOV, No. 20-17345
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-02492-VC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Gregory Jodi Jeloudov appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Prather v. AT&T, Inc., 847 F.3d
1097, 1102 (9th Cir. 2017) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction);
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011)
(dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed on the basis of res judicata Jeloudov’s
claims alleging workplace discrimination and harassment because they involved
the same primary right raised in a prior state court action that resulted in a final
judgment on the merits. See San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City
Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (federal court must follow
state’s preclusion rules to determine effect of a state court judgment; discussing
elements of claim preclusion under California law); Boeken v. Philip Morris USA,
Inc., 230 P.3d 342, 348 (Cal. 2010) (under the primary rights theory, “a judgment
for the defendant is a bar to a subsequent action by the plaintiff based on the same
injury to the same right, even though [she] presents a different legal ground for
relief” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also In re Estate of
Redfield, 124 Cal. Rptr. 3d 402, 407 (Ct. App. 2011) (“A dismissal with prejudice
following a settlement constitutes a final judgment on the merits.”).
The district court properly dismissed Jeloudov’s remaining claims for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction because Jeloudov failed to allege a federal question.
See Shapiro v. McManus, 577 U.S. 39, 45 (2015) (claims that are “wholly
insubstantial” or “obviously frivolous” are insufficient to “raise a substantial
federal question for jurisdictional purposes”).
2 20-17345
The district court did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice. See
Fed. R. Evid. 201; Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001)
(standard of review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Jeloudov’s
complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile.
See Cervantes, 656 F.3d at 1041 (setting forth standard of review and explaining
that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
We reject as unsupported by the record Jeloudov’s contentions that the
district court was biased against her.
Jeloudov’s motion for default (Docket Entry No. 7) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 20-17345