Nghiem

MEMORANDUM **

The threshold issue is whether Debtor’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res *490 judicata because he failed to raise the claims in an unlawful detainer action prosecuted in the Superior Court for Santa Clara County. We conclude that Debtor is attempting to relitigate issues previously adjudicated against him in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Because the parties are familiar with the pertinent facts, we do not state them here.

As noted in Siegel v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 143 F.3d 525, 528-29 (9th Cir.1998),

The Bankruptcy Court found that Debt- or was barred from challenging the adequacy of the foreclosure proceedings because those issues had been raised in state court during the unlawful detainer action. After an evidentiary hearing, the Superior Court for Santa Clara County addressed the adequacy of the foreclosure procedures, finding that GMAC Mortgage Corp. complied with the foreclosure procedures set forth in California Civil Code § 2924— the same procedures challenged by Debtor in the present appeal.

Here, the parties to the unlawful detain-er action are the same parties before this Court. The state court judgment was on the merits.…