Stanford v. Lombardo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 18 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT TRUDY STANFORD, No. 24-6644 D.C. No. 3:23-cv-00642-CSD Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* JOSEPH MICHAEL LOMBARDO; JACK ROBB; ROB BOEHMER, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Craig S. Denney, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted March 16, 2026*** Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Trudy Stanford appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from a dispute over funds

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). from a deferred compensation account. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) based on issue preclusion. Garity v. APWU Nat’l Lab. Org., 828 F.3d 848, 854 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Stanford’s action because the issue of whether she is the proper beneficiary of funds from a deferred compensation account has already been litigated and decided in a final judgment on the merits in her prior state court suit. See Hardwick v. County of Orange, 980 F.3d 733, 740 (9th Cir. 2020) (“[A] federal court considering whether to apply issue preclusion based on a prior state court judgment must look to state preclusion law.” (internal quotations omitted)); Pike v. Hester, 891 F.3d 1131, 1138 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting forth the elements for applying issue preclusion under Nevada law).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-6644