From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Le v. Bank of Am.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Oct 7, 2014
585 F. App'x 362 (9th Cir. 2014)

Summary

In Le v. Bank of America, NA, 585 Fed. Appx. 362 (9th Cir. 2014), our court of appeals affirmed a district court's dismissal of a lawsuit under res judicata for "claims arising out of the same loan transaction and related foreclosure proceedings against the same defendant" as two prior federal actions brought by the same plaintiff in which there were final judgments on the merits.

Summary of this case from Borg v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Opinion

No. 11-57151

10-07-2014

NANCY HOANG LE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA; PRLAP, INC., Trustee, Defendants - Appellees and BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, Defendant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 8:11-cv-01083-AG-AN MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Nancy Hoang Le appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her foreclosure-related action alleging a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) and various provisions of state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action as precluded by the doctrine of res judicata (claim preclusion) because Le alleged claims arising out of the same loan transaction and related foreclosure proceedings against the same defendant, or an entity in privity with the current defendants, in two prior federal actions in which there were final judgments on the merits. See id. at 956-57 (setting forth the elements of the doctrine of res judicata, and noting that it bars subsequent litigation of both claims that were raised and that could have been raised in the prior action); Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 244 F.3d 708, 714 (9th Cir. 2001) (unless otherwise specified, dismissal with prejudice of an action for failure to prosecute operates as an adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

Le's "Informal Request," filed November 20, 2013, is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Le v. Bank of Am.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Oct 7, 2014
585 F. App'x 362 (9th Cir. 2014)

In Le v. Bank of America, NA, 585 Fed. Appx. 362 (9th Cir. 2014), our court of appeals affirmed a district court's dismissal of a lawsuit under res judicata for "claims arising out of the same loan transaction and related foreclosure proceedings against the same defendant" as two prior federal actions brought by the same plaintiff in which there were final judgments on the merits.

Summary of this case from Borg v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Case details for

Le v. Bank of Am.

Case Details

Full title:NANCY HOANG LE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA; PRLAP…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Oct 7, 2014

Citations

585 F. App'x 362 (9th Cir. 2014)

Citing Cases

Lucore v. Bank of Am.

(Compare FAVC, with WF Ex. D.) “In California, a wrongful foreclosure constitutes an injury to a single…

Keo v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp.

"In California, a wrongful foreclosure constitutes an injury to a single primary right, regardless of the…