Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed judgments against Mostafa Aram Azadpour in consolidated appeals concerning the denial of long-term disability benefits. The court upheld summary judgment, dismissal on res judicata grounds, dismissal of a fraud claim for failure to plead with particularity, and denial of remand because ERISA preempted the claims.
Holdings
- The district court's summary judgment for defendants was affirmed because Azadpour did not challenge the district court's conclusions of law on appeal, and any such arguments were deemed abandoned.
- Azadpour could not present purportedly new facts in opposition to summary judgment for the first time on appeal.
- The district court properly dismissed the second action based on res judicata.
- The district court properly dismissed the fraud claim for failure to state a claim.
- The district court properly denied Azadpour's motions to remand because ERISA preempted his claims.
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants in the action concerning long-term disability benefits.
- Whether the second action was barred by res judicata.
- Whether the remaining fraud claim was adequately pleaded under the applicable pleading requirements.
- Whether the district court properly denied remand because ERISA preempted Azadpour's claims.
- Whether Azadpour could raise new facts or arguments for the first time on appeal.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (8)
- Universal Health Servs. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2004)(followed)
- Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
- Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005)(followed)
- Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir. 1998)(followed)
- Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003)(followed)
- Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 n.6 (9th Cir. 2003)(followed)
- Tripati v. G.L. Henman, 857 F.2d 1366, 1367 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam)(followed)
- DeVoll v. Burdick Painting, Inc., 35 F.3d 408, 412 (9th Cir. 1994)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…