Bank of Lake Tahoe v. Bank of America

MEMORANDUM **

Appellants Joseph Bourdeau (“Bour-deau”) and Bank of Lake Tahoe (“BLT”) appeal three final orders of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. We address here only the orders granting summary judgment to Bank of *311 America and awarding attorney’s fees to Bank of America, 1 and we affirm.

I.

We look to Nevada law to determine whether claim preclusion is appropriate. See Clements v. Airport Auth. of Washoe County, 69 F.3d 321 , 328 (9th Cir.1995). Under Nevada law, claim preclusion will apply where there is a valid final judgment on merits of a claim; the judgment concerns the same parties, or parties in privity with them; and the claims being brought are based on the same cause of action. Executive Mgmt., LTD. v. Ticor Title Ins. Co., 114 Nev. 823 , 963 P.2d 465, 473 (1998); Bissell v. College Dev. Co., 89 Nev. 558 , 517 P.2d 185, 187 (1973). The test for identical causes of action under Nevada law is “whether the sets of facts essential to maintain the two suits are the same.” Clements, 69 F.3d at 328 n. 4. Claim preclusion “embraces all grounds of recovery that were asserted in a suit, as well as those that could have been asserted.” Univ. of…