Donnamay Brockbank v. Kevin Staples

Good Law
595 F. App'x 724
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 4, 201513-35548California320 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Donnamay Brockbank and Dennis Lee Moses appeal pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in their action seeking relief under the Truth and Lending Act, Regulation Z, and Washington state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata, because Brockbank and Moses had alleged claims arising out of the same loan transaction and related foreclosure proceedings against the same defendants in at least one prior action. See Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.2007) (federal courts must apply state law regarding res judicata to state court judgments); Seattle-First Nat’l Bank v. Kawachi, 91 Wash.2d 223 , 588 P.2d 725, 727 (1978) (en banc) (elements of res judicata under Washington state law); Kelly-Hansen v. Kelly-Hansen, 87 Wash.App. 320 , 941 P.2d 1108, 1112 (1997) (doctrine of res judicata bars litigation of claims that were or could have been raised in the prior action).

Contrary to appellants’ contention, the district court was not required to hold oral argument…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.