MEMORANDUM **

Midland Innovations, NV, appeals from the district court’s order dismissing its diversity action alleging state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal of an action as duplicative. Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 904, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Midland’s action on the basis that the instant action is duplica-tive of an earlier-filed action, Midland Innovations, NV v. Weiland International Inc., et al., No. 4:07-mc-80257-CW. See id. at 689 (explaining that an action is duplica-tive if “the causes of action and relief sought, as well as the parties ... to the action, are the same” and setting forth criteria for the “transaction test” to determine whether the causes of action are the same).

Midland’s Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket Entry No. 9) and Chen’s Motion for Judicial Notice (Docket Entry No. 20) are granted.

AFFIRMED.