NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 21 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EMMA MARTIN; ELIZABETH No. 21-55400 GAGLIANO; KATHRYN SESSINGHAUS, individually and as heirs of Vincent Paul D.C. No. Martin, deceased, 2:21-cv-00187-DSF-SK

Plaintiffs-Appellees, MEMORANDUM* v.

SERRANO POST ACUTE LLC, DBA Hollywood Premier Healthcare Center, AKA Serrano Healthcare, AKA Serrano North Convalescent Hospital; BENJAMIN LANDA, an individual,

Defendants-Appellants,

and

MARCEL ADRIAN SOLERO FILART, an individual; DOES, 1-50,

Defendants.

EMMA MARTIN; ELIZABETH No. 21-55403 GAGLIANO; KATHRYN SESSINGHAUS, individually and as heirs of Vincent Paul D.C. No. Martin, deceased, 2:21-cv-00187-DSF-SK

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

MARCEL ADRIAN SOLERO FILART, an individual,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

SERRANO POST ACUTE LLC, DBA Hollywood Premier Healthcare Center, AKA Serrano Healthcare, AKA Serrano North Convalescent Hospital; BENJAMIN LANDA, an individual; DOES, 1-50,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 20, 2023**

Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Marcel Adrian Solero Filart, Serrano Post Acute LLC, and Benjamin Landa

(collectively, Defendants) appeal the district court’s order of March 25, 2021,

remanding this case to state court for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 Defendants argue that the district court had three independent grounds for federal

jurisdiction: federal officer removal, complete preemption of state law, and the

presence of an embedded federal question.

However, Defendants are collaterally estopped from arguing any of these

grounds for jurisdiction. The doctrine of collateral estoppel forecloses relitigation of

an issue that is “identical” to one “actually litigated” and “necessar[ily]” decided in

a prior action. Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., 966 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th Cir. 1992).

Here, Defendants previously appealed the district court’s remand order of September

10, 2020, presenting the same claims, arguments, and evidence as in the instant

appeal. Martin v. Filart, No. 20-56067, 2022 WL 576012 (February 22, 2022).1 We

affirmed the district court’s remand for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction—

and our determination of the federal officer removal, complete preemption, and

embedded federal question issues, id. at *1, was a critical and necessary part of the

judgment. Defendants are precluded from relitigating these issues here.

AFFIRMED.

1 The motions for judicial notice of the first district court order, Dkt. #21, and of Defendants’ opening briefs in the first appeal, Dkt. #31, are GRANTED.

3