MEMORANDUM

Victor Segovia appeals from a district court decision affirming the bankruptcy court’s partial grant of Bach Construction, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. Segovia challenges the bankruptcy court’s refusal to enter default judgment against Bach Construction and argues that the bankruptcy court erred in its application of res judicata.

We review a bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law de novo and findings of fact for clear error. In re Pace, 67 F.3d 187, 191 (9th Cir.1995). We review a decision regarding entry of default judgment for abuse of discretion. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Huynh, 503 F.3d 847, 852 (9th Cir.2007). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158 (d). We affirm.

The facts of the case are known to the parties. We do not repeat them.

Segovia argues that the bankruptcy court erred in refusing to enter default judgment against Bach Construction when it filed a late answer to his cross-complaint. Segovia makes no showing that he was prejudiced by the court’s refusal to enter default judgment, and so that refusal was not an abuse of discretion. See Draper v. Coombs, 792 F.2d 915, 924-25 (9th Cir.1986).

Segovia next argues that the bankruptcy court incorrectly applied res judicata. Res judicata precludes subsequent suits regarding the same claims, raised between the same parties, when a previous suit has proceeded to a final judgment, on the merits. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.2002). Here, all of the elements of res judicata are met. The exact same claim was brought between the same parties in a prior action that proceeded to the Ninth Circuit after a final judgment on the merits. See Segovia v. Bach Constr., 346 Fed.Appx. 156 (9th Cir.2009).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3. . We deny Bach Construction’s January 8, 2010 request that we take judicial notice of our prior decision.