Opinion
MEMORANDUM
DALE S. FISCHER, United States District Judge.
Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order GRANTING Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 10)
The Court deems this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. The hearing set for July 27, 2015 is removed from the Court's calendar.
Defendants contend that two California judgments in their favor bar Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (FAC). Plaintiff, who is unrepresented, filed an opposition but did not address Defendants' preclusion arguments.
" It is now settled that a federal court must give to a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment under the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered." Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Ed., 465 U.S. 75, 81, 104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984). As to the preclusive effect of judgments, California distinguishes between claim preclusion and issue preclusion. See DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, __ Cal.4th __, 2015 WL 4182820 (Cal. July 13, 2015). Claim preclusion " prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them." Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 28 Cal.4th 888, 896, 123 Cal.Rptr.2d 432, 51 P.3d 297 (2002). Issue preclusion, in contrast, " prohibits the relitigation of issues argued and decided in a previous case, even if the second suit raises different causes of action, " and may be employed by an entity that was not a party to the prior litigation. DKN Holdings LLC, 2015 WL 4182820, at *6.
Given their distinct functions, claim preclusion and issue preclusion require different showings. " Claim preclusion arises if a second suit involves: (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit." Id. Issue preclusion arises " (1) after final adjudication (2) of an identical issue (3) actually litigated and necessarily decided in the first suit and (4) asserted against one who was a party in the first suit or one in privity with that party." Id.
Plaintiff previously filed two lawsuits in California state court concerning the same property and deed of trust at issue in this action. See RJN Exs. 11-20. With the exception of Defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), all Defendants to this action were parties to at least one of these suits, both of which resulted in final judgments for Defendants. See RJN Ex. 20; Kan.v. Guild Mortg. Co., 230 Cal.App.4th 736, 738, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 745 (2014). Given that these Defendants have already prevailed against Plaintiff in suits involving the same conduct, claim preclusion bars the current action as to all Defendants with the exception of MERS.
Although raised by neither party, the Court notes that Kan.was not a party to the two state court proceedings in his individual capacity. The plaintiff in those actions was " P.C.Y.A. Trust by and through Lindsay T. Kan.as Trustee." (See RJN, Exs. 11, 18.) Claim preclusion therefore does not bar this action unless Kan.was in privity with P.C.Y.A. Trust. See DKN Holdings LLC, 2015 WL 4182820, at *6 (" Claim preclusion 'prevents relitigation of the same cause of action in a second suit between the same parties or parties in privity with them.'"). Given that Kan.purportedly granted the subject property to P.C.Y.A. Trust with himself as trustee, see RJN Ex. 19, Kan.and P.C.Y.A. Trust were " sufficiently close" to be considered in privity with one another. Clemmer v. Hartford Ins. Co., 22 Cal.3d 865, 875, 151 Cal.Rptr. 285, 587 P.2d 1098 (1978); see also Ceresino v. Fire Ins. Exch., 215 Cal.App.3d 814, 820, 264 Cal.Rptr. 30 (1989) (explaining that privity exists where nonparties " had a proprietary or financial interest in and control of, a prior action").
On a motion to dismiss, courts may take judicial notice of court records from other cases. See Trigueros v. Adams, 658 F.3d 983, 987 (9th Cir. 2011) (" [Courts] may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.").
It appears that each cause of action in Plaintiff's FAC is premised on the theory that the assignment of the subject deed of trust was invalid. This issue was previously litigated and determined (in Defendants' favor) in the two prior state court proceedings. Issue preclusion therefore bars Plaintiff from relitigating this issue against all parties, even those -- such as MERS -- that were not parties to the state court proceedings. See DKN Holdings LLC, 2015 WL 4182820, at *8 (" Unlike claim preclusion, issue preclusion can be invoked by one not a party to the first proceeding. The bar is asserted against a party who had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first case but lost.").
Plaintiff suggests that portions of the FAC are premised on the alternative theory that the assignment of the deed of trust was valid. Although the FAC contains some language to this effect, see FAC ¶ 4, none of the actual causes of action appear predicated on this theory. Moreover, even assuming that the FAC contains allegations premised on a theory that the assignment was valid, Plaintiff offers no authority for the proposition that any such claims are cognizable.
The motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Given that Plaintiff's claims are barred by the prior state court actions and Plaintiff has offered no reason to conclude that amending would not be futile, the FAC is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
JUDGMENT
The Court having granted defendants' motion to dismiss, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the plaintiff take nothing, that the action be dismissed with prejudice, and that defendants recover their costs of suit pursuant to a bill of costs filed in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1920.