Edelman v. Lazare, 2:19-cv-00666

Pro se plaintiff Jon J. Edelman sued Peter Lazare (trustee) and Asher Edelman (executor/beneficiary) alleging conspiracy, self-dealing, diversion of estate funds, improper loans and distributions, and a scheme that deprived the Edelman Trust of roughly $4.7 million.
The Edelman Trust was an irrevocable, discretionary, spendthrift trust created by Mildred Ash; Asher Edelman administered the Estate and Lazare served as trustee; the Estate sold a major real property interest and became largely cash.
Plaintiff previously litigated substantially the same claims (including a civil-conspiracy claim) in the Southern District of New York; Judge Paul Oetken issued a final judgment against Edelman on May 17, 2018 on identical claims.
Defendants moved to dismiss in the Nevada district court on res judicata/claim-preclusion grounds and sought judicial notice of public records from the prior proceedings; Edelman attempted to raise additional factual allegations in opposition.
The court applied Nevada law (in diversity) and held that claim preclusion barred Edelman’s complaint because (1) parties/privity were the same, (2) the prior judgment was valid and final, and (3) the present claims are the same as or could have been raised previously; attempts to amend via opposition or rely on post-judgment “new” facts were insufficient.
The court granted both motions to dismiss, granted motions to extend time, denied remaining motions as moot, entered judgment, and closed the case (May 30, 2020).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Claim preclusion / res judicata	Edelman contends new factual detail supports a fresh civil-conspiracy claim	Prior SDNY judgment disposed of identical claims; same parties/privity; prior final judgment	Dismissed: res judicata bars the lawsuit (same parties, valid final judgment, same claims or those that could have been raised)
New facts discovered after prior suit	Newly alleged payments/bribe facts (and others) were not available or essential before, so claim is new	New facts do not defeat claim preclusion if they could have been raised earlier	Rejected: plaintiff failed to show why facts could not have been asserted earlier; sparse new facts do not revive adjudicated claims
Amendment via opposition / pro se leniency	Edelman attempted to add allegations in his opposition papers	Defendants argue pleadings cannot be amended by opposition; evidence must be pled properly	Court refused to treat opposition as amended complaint; pro se status does not permit pleading-by-brief
Judicial notice of prior public records	Implied challenge to authenticity of prior SDNY materials	Defendants asked court to take judicial notice of public records/SDNY opinion	Court took judicial notice of public records when authenticity not disputed and relied on prior SDNY judgment

NTCH-WA, Inc. v. ZTE Corp., 921 F.3d 1175 (9th Cir. 2019) (federal court in diversity applies state preclusion rules)
Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 194 P.3d 709 (Nev. 2008) (elements for claim preclusion under Nevada law)
Alcantara v. Wal-Mart Stores, 321 P.3d 912 (Nev. 2014) (res judicata bars claims based on same facts or wrongful conduct that were or could have been raised earlier)
Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 579 U.S. 582 (2016) (new material facts can sometimes mean a later case presents a different claim)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain more than labels and conclusions)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Schneider v. California Dept. of Corrections, 151 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (party may not amend pleadings through an opposition brief)
Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (courts may judicially notice public records when authenticity is not contested)