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:T418,MEMORANDUM Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. initiated judicial foreclosure proceedings against Kenneth and Carol McLeod after they defaulted on a $771,000 home loan. Because the McLeods had obtained a default judgment against Deutsche Bank in separate state court proceedings, the district court dismissed Deutsche Bank’s complaint as barred by res judicata and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine “without prejudice to seeking relief from the Default Judgment from the state court.” The Arizona Court of Appeals has now concluded that the default judgment was void ab initio. McLeod v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., No. 1 CA-CV 15-0504, 2017 WL 2189498 , at *4-5 ¶¶ 20-21, 26 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 18, 2017) (unpublished). We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings in light of the decision of the state court. Each party is to bear its own costs on appeal. VACATED AND REMANDED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.24:T44a,

MEMORANDUM

Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. initiated judicial foreclosure proceedings against Kenneth and Carol McLeod after they defaulted on a $771,000 home loan. Because the McLeods had obtained a default judgment against Deutsche Bank in separate state court proceedings, the district court dismissed Deutsche Bank’s complaint as barred by res judicata and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine “without prejudice to seeking relief from the Default Judgment from the state court.”

The Arizona Court of Appeals has now concluded that the default judgment was void ab initio. McLeod v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., No. 1 CA-CV 15-0504, 2017 WL 2189498 , at *4-5 ¶¶ 20-21, 26 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 18, 2017) (unpublished). We therefore vacate the district court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings in light of the decision of the state court.

Each party is to bear its own costs on appeal.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.