22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T501,MEMORANDUM John Harper and Lana Kudina appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment in their action arising from their offer to purchase a property in a residential development built by defendants. 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). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the action because plaintiffs may not reliti-gate whether defendants improperly discriminated against them by not accepting their offer to purchase a property because those claims have already been litigated, or could have been litigated, by the parties or their privies in state court. See Harper v. Coldwell Banker Barbara Sue Seal Props., No. 35646-5-II, slip op. at 1, 2007 WL 4303513 (Wash.Ct.App. Dec. 11, 2007) (affirming summary judgment in favor of defendants or their privies); see also Chao v. A-One Med. Servs., Inc., 346 F.3d 908, 921 (9th Cir.2003) (describing elements of res judicata under Washington law). Appellants’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive. Appellees’ motions filed on October 22, 2008 are granted. All other pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T538,

MEMORANDUM

John Harper and Lana Kudina appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment in their action arising from their offer to purchase a property in a residential development built by defendants. 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). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because plaintiffs may not reliti-gate whether defendants improperly discriminated against them by not accepting their offer to purchase a property because those claims have already been litigated, or could have been litigated, by the parties or their privies in state court. See Harper v. Coldwell Banker Barbara Sue Seal Props., No. 35646-5-II, slip op. at 1, 2007 WL 4303513 (Wash.Ct.App. Dec. 11, 2007) (affirming summary judgment in favor of defendants or their privies); see also Chao v. A-One Med. Servs., Inc., 346 F.3d 908, 921 (9th Cir.2003) (describing elements of res judicata under Washington law).

Appellants’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Appellees’ motions filed on October 22, 2008 are granted. All other pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

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