
    Cindy HUNG, deceased; Li Ching Chu, individually and as successor in interest to Cindy K. Hung; Robert Ching Liang Hung, individually and as successors to Cindy Hung, deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TRIBAL TECHNOLOGIES; Glenborough 400 ECR, LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-17432
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted March 13, 2017  San Francisco, California
    Filed March 16, 2017
    Lynda Hupg, Counsel, Lynda Hung, Daly City, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
    Kasey C. Townsend, Attorney, Murchison & Cumming, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Tribal Technologies
    J. Kevin Moore, Attorney, Poole & Shaf-fery, LLP, Walnut Creek, CA, David Sean Poole, Attorney, Poole & Shaffery, LLP, Valencia, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Glenborough 400 ECR, LLC
    Before: WALLACE, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs appeal from the district court’s judgement entered under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) in favor of Defendant Glenborough 400 ECR, LLC. We review the district court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs’ claims against Glenborough are barred by the doctrine of res judicata de novo, see Bravo v. City of Santa Maria, 665 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir. 2011), and now affirm.

“[I]n this diversity case where only substantive state law is at issue we apply the preclusion law that the [state court which issued the first judgment] would apply.” Giles v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 884 (9th Cir. 2007). Because the first judgment in favor of Glenborough was issued by a California court, we apply California preclusion law. That law requires three elements to be met for preclusion to apply:

(1) A claim or issue raised in the present action is identical to a claim or issue litigated in a prior proceeding; (2) the prior proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party against whom the doctrine is being asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the prior proceeding.

People v. Barragan, 32 Cal.4th 236, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 76, 83 P.3d 480, 492 (2004) (citation omitted).

All three elements are satisfied here. First, the claims Plaintiffs raised against Glenborough in the prior California action are identical to the claims they brought in this case. Second, the California Superior Court entered a final judgment on the merits against Plaintiffs, and that judgment was affirmed by the California Court of Appeal. Third, the same Plaintiffs brought both actions.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . Plaintiffs’ motion to take judicial notice of certain documents is denied.
     