FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 28 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KM ENTERPRISES, INC., an Illinois No. 15-15865
corporation, and RODNEY KRIS
MORGAN, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-04906-VC
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
GLOBAL TRAFFIC TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, and GLOBAL TRAFFIC
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vince G. Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 15, 2017
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Page 2 of 3
1. The district court did not err by granting defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Defendants argued that plaintiffs’ action was barred by the doctrine of claim
preclusion, based on an earlier judgment entered against plaintiffs by the District
Court for the District of Minnesota. In support of that argument, defendants
identified several allegations supporting plaintiffs’ claims in this case that
overlapped with the allegations asserted by plaintiffs in the Minnesota case.
Defendants also argued that to the extent plaintiffs had not brought the claims
previously, plaintiffs could have brought their antitrust claims in the Minnesota
litigation, and that this also had equivalent claim-preclusive effect. Plaintiffs did
not meaningfully contest defendants’ claim preclusion arguments in their
opposition to the motion to dismiss and, on their face at least, defendants’
arguments appeared meritorious.
2. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs’
motion to alter or amend the judgment. In their motion, plaintiffs asserted for the
first time a potentially valid response to defendants’ arguments that claim
preclusion applied. But plaintiffs offered no explanation for failing to assert that
response in their opposition to the motion to dismiss. As a result, the district court
was under no obligation to entertain their untimely post-judgment arguments. See
Ramona Equipment Rental, Inc. v. Carolina Casualty Insurance Company, 755
Page 3 of 3
F.3d 1063, 1070 (9th Cir. 2014); see also Beech Aircraft Corp. v. United States, 51
F.3d 834, 841 (9th Cir. 1995) (appellate court has no obligation to consider
arguments on appeal that could have been raised below but were not).
AFFIRMED.
Plaintiffs’ motion to strike portions of defendants’ supplemental excerpts of
record is DENIED.