
    Martha G. SAPUKOTANA, the surviving spouse of Sarath Sapukotana; et al., Plaintiff—Appellee, v. VAN STRAALEN FARM TRUCKING, a Washington corporation; et al., Defendants—Appellees, and Palinawadanage Ramya Chandrala Fernando, Intervenor—Appellant.
    No. 10-16803.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 28, 2011.
    
    Filed Nov. 3, 2011.
    
      James E. Marner, Esquire, Michael F. Rollins, Esquire, Silas H. Shultz, Esquire, Shultz & Rollins Ltd., Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Michael W. Halvorson, Phillip H. Stan-field, Joseph J. Popolizio, Esquire, Jones Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Nadi Ganesan Viswanathan, Esquire, Pravinchandra J. Patel, P.C., New York, NY, for Intervenor-Appellant.
    Before: GRABER and IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and KAPLAN, District Judge.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan, Senior District Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

The Mississippi Chancery court determined that Sarath Sapukotana had dissolved his marriage to Ramya Chandrala-tha Fernando and, consequently, that Martha Sapukotana, not Fernando, was Sarath Sapukotana’s widow. This issue was actually litigated and was essential, see Miss.Code Ann. § 91-7-63 (2010), to that court’s judgment appointing Martha Sapukotana as administrator of the estate. Harris v. Bd. of Trs. of State Insts. of Higher Learning, 731 So.2d 588, 590 (Miss.1999). This state court judgment regarding Fernando’s status would have preclusive effect in other Mississippi courts and therefore must be given full faith and credit in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1738; Kremer v. Chem. Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982).

Because Fernando is not Sapukotana’s surviving wife, she has no significantly protectable interest in the wrongful death suit arising from his death, see Ariz.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-612(A) (2010). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying Fernando’s motion to intervene. City of Emeryville v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1251, 1259 (9th Cir.2010).

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