Samuel G. Chia v. Motorola Commc'ns, Inc., 990 F.2d 1256 (9th Cir. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
Samuel G. Chia v. Motorola Commc'ns, Inc., 990 F.2d 1256 (9th Cir. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“here is ample precedent for deferring the offset issue until after the determination of the merits.”
43 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Davis v. City of Idaho Falls (idd, 2019-05-22)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Davis v. City of Idaho Falls
D. Idaho · 2019 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
here is ample precedent for deferring the offset issue until after the determination of the merits.
discussed Cited "see" In Re Ripley
Bankr. E.D. Pa. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See California Diesel & Equipment, Inc. v. Sun Exploration and Production Co., 990 F.2d 1256 , 1993 WL 77276 (9th Cir. Mar.18, 1993) (holding that costs to improve property were necessarily sellers costs and would not be imposed on the buyer of property); In re River Valley Fitness One Ltd.
discussed Cited "see" 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7682, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,657 Ronald Cree, Jr. Dalton Cree Jack Haggerty Douglas Beebe Joseph Yallup Carl Boyle Richard \Kip\" Ramsey
D.C. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cree v. Washington, 990 F.2d 1256 , 1993 WL 115230 (9th Cir.1993) (Table) 4 The court also noted that Stevens doubled as Chief Engineer of the Northern Division of the Pacific Railroad Surveys chartered by Congress to ascertain the most expedient transcontinental railroad route. 955 F.Supp. at 1240 5 Presumably, the "Great Chief" refers to the President while "his council" refers to Congress 6 The district court also held that, under Washington v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation, 447 U.S. 134 , 100 S.Ct. 2069 , 65 L.Ed.2d 10 (1980), the challenged fees were preempted…
cited Cited "see" Cree v. Flores
10th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cree v. Washington, 990 F.2d 1256 , 1993 WL 115230 (9th Cir.1993) (Table). .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Risdon v. Jones
D. Idaho · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Crotts v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 990 F.2d 1256, *1 (9th Cir. 1993) (unpublished table opinion) (“In civil rights actions, allegations of a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, should be INITIAL REVIEW ORDER - 3 liberally construed.”) (citing Lopez v. Dep’t of Health Servs, 939 F.2d 881, 882-83 ) (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Braun v. Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC
D. Idaho · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Crotts v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 990 F.2d 1256 , *1 (9th Cir. 1993) (unpublished table opinion) (“In civil rights actions, allegations of a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, should be liberally construed.”) (citing Lopez v. Dep’t of Health Servs, 939 F.2d 881, 882-83 ) (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cronin v. Idaho Department of Health and Welfare (IDHW)
D. Idaho · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Crotts v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 990 F.2d 1256 , *1 (9th Cir. 1993) (unpublished table opinion) (“In civil rights actions, allegations of a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, should be liberally construed.”) (citing Lopez v. Dep’t of Health Servs, 939 F.2d 881, 882-83 (9th Cir. 1991)) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Meiller v. Attorney General of Boise, ID
D. Idaho · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Crotts v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 990 F.2d 1256 , *1 (9th Cir. 1993) (unpublished table opinion) (“In civil rights actions, allegations of a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, should be liberally construed.”) (citing Lopez v. Dep’t of Health Servs, 939 F.2d 881, 882-83 ) (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Meiller v. Attorney General of Boise, ID
D. Idaho · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Crotts v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 990 F.2d 1256 , *1 (9th Cir. 1993) (unpublished table opinion) (“In civil rights actions, allegations of a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, should be liberally construed.”) (citing Lopez v. Dep’t of Health Servs, 939 F.2d 881, 882-83 ) (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Crowe v. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game
D. Idaho · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Crotts v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 990 F.2d 1256 , *1 (9th Cir. 1993) (unpublished table opinion) (“In civil rights actions, allegations of a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, should be liberally construed.”) (citing Lopez v. Dep’t of Health Servs., 939 F.2d 881, 882-83 ) (9th Cir. 1991) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Neilson v. Union Bank of California, N.A.
C.D. Cal. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Cope v. Price Waterhouse, 990 F.2d 1256 , 1993 WL 102598, * 6 (9th Cir. Apr.7, 1993) (Unpub.Disp.) (“In a case of secondary liability for common law fraud, the California Supreme Court held that ‘[t]he words “aid and abet” ... have a well understood meaning, and may fairly be construed to imply an intentional participation with knowledge of the object to be attained.’ ...
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Samuel G. Chia
v.
Motorola Communications, Inc.
92-16248.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Apr 2, 1993.
990 F.2d 1256
Unpublished
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 79%
Citer courts: D. Idaho (1)

990 F.2d 1256

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Samuel G. CHIA, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 92-16248.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 23, 1993.[*]
Decided April 2, 1993.

Before WALLACE, Chief Judge, and FARRIS and BRUNETTI, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM[**]

2

Samuel G. Chia appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his action against Motorola Communications & Electronics, Inc. ("Motorola") on res judicata grounds. In his complaint, Chia alleges that employees of Motorola caused him to lose his job with the Department of Interior through fraud, misrepresentation and other tortious acts. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

3

* Standard of Review

4

We review de novo the dismissal of an action on res judicata grounds. See Clark v. Bear Streans & Co., 966 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th Cir.1992).

II

Merits

5

"Res judicata bars all grounds for recovery which could have been asserted, whether they actually were or not, in a prior suit between the same parties on the same cause of action." See id. To determine whether a successive suit involves "the same cause of action, we consider: (1) whether rights or interests established in the prior judgment would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action; (2) whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions; (3) whether the two suits involve infringement of the same right; and (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts." Id. The final criterion is the most important. C.D. Anderson & Co. v. Lemos, 832 F.2d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir.1987).

6

On January 3, 1991, Chia filed his first action, Chia v. Motorola Communications & Elecs., Inc., No. C-91-0021-JPV (N.D.Cal. Jul. 18, 1991) ("Chia I "), based on RICO and 18 U.S.C. § 1001 violations. In Chia I, Chia alleged that Motorola through its employees had given misinformation to the Department of Interior regarding the operation and maintenance of a radio system and that these actions had resulted in the loss of Chia's job as an electronics journeyman. The district court dismissed the action. Chia filed several motions for reconsideration, but all were denied by the district court and no appeal was taken. Chia then filed a new complaint ("Chia II ") seeking relief sounding in tort based on the same nucleus of facts presented in Chia I.

7

Here, Chia II is an attempt to relitigate claims which were or could have been raised in Chia I. See Lemos, 832 F.2d at 1099-1100. Because these claims arise from the same transactional nucleus of facts, the district court properly dismissed the action on res judicata grounds. See id.[1]

8

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3

1

To the extent Chia contends on appeal that the district court erred by not vacating Chia I for fraud pursuant to Fed.Civ.P. 60(b)(3), this contention lacks merit. To prevail on a 60(b)(3) motion, Chia must show that the fraud perpetrated on the court involves "an unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decision." Toscano v. Commissioner, 441 F.2d 930, 934 (9th Cir.1971) (quotations omitted). Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Chia has failed to meet his burden