Opinion
No. 67364
07-23-2015
BOBBY L. FRANKLIN, Appellant, v. D.J. LAUGHLIN, D/B/A BWD PROPERTIES 2, LLC; BWD PROPERTIES 3, LLC; AND BWD PROPERTIES 4, LLC, Respondents.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is a pro se appeal from a district court order dismissing the complaint and expunging a lis pendens. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; J. Charles Thompson, Senior Judge.
Appellant claims title to the subject property through a 1988 Desert Land Entry Act application. Appellant and respondents have litigated this issue repeatedly, with many federal courts finding that appellant has no right to the property at issue. E.g., Franklin v. United States, 46 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 1995); Franklin v. Laughlin, No. 10-CV-1027, 2011 WL 672328 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 15, 2011); Franklin v. Chatterton, Order and Injunction, No. 2:07-CV-01400 (D. Nev. April 21, 2008), aff'd, 358 F. App'x 970 (9th Cir. 2009); BWD Props. 2, LLC v. Franklin, Order, No. 2:06-CV-01499 (D. Nev. Sept. 29, 2008). The federal courts have enjoined him from bringing litigation regarding his claims to the property and declared him a vexatious litigant. Franklin, Order and Injunction, No. 2:07-CV-01400 (D. Nev. April 21, 2008); BWD Props. 2, Order, No. 2:06-CV-01499 (D. Nev. Sept. 29, 2008). After hearing respondents' motion to dismiss on these grounds, the district court dismissed appellant's complaint and expunged his lis pendens. Appellant appealed.
Nevada courts are bound to give the decisions of the federal courts preclusive effect in this matter. Semtek Int'l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 508-09 (2001) (describing the preclusive effect that state courts must give to federal courts acting with diversity jurisdiction); Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165, 170-71 (1938) (describing the preclusive effect that states must give federal courts acting with federal question jurisdiction); Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev. 1048, 1055, 194 P.3d 709, 713 (2008) (applying issue preclusion where the issues are identical, the issues were actually and necessarily litigated, and a final ruling on the merits was issued). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
/s/_________, J.
Saitta
/s/_________, J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Pickering
cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court
Hon. J. Charles Thompson, Senior Judge
Bobby L. Franklin
Jolley Urga Wirth Woodbury & Little
Eighth District Court Clerk