Tawny Sharp v. Deutsche Bank National Trust ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TAWNY SHARP and DAVID No. 12-56017
WALTERS,
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-07712-GAF-SP
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, as Trustee,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
DEFAULT RESOLUTION NETWORK,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Tawny Sharp and David Walters appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis
of res judicata. Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir.
2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action as barred by the
doctrine of res judicata because plaintiffs could have raised their claims in Sharp’s
prior California state court action, which involved the same primary rights, the
same parties or their privies, and resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See
Fed’n of Hillside & Canyon Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles, 24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 543,
557 (Ct. App. 2004) (setting forth elements of res judicata under California law
and noting that “[r]es judicata bars the litigation not only of issues that were
actually litigated but also issues that could have been litigated”); see also Mueller
v. J.C. Penney Co., 219 Cal. Rptr. 272 (Ct. App. 1985) (“Under California law,
spouses are in privity with each other where the cause of action in the prior
litigation was ‘community in nature’ and the ‘proceeds of any judgment that might
have been recovered . . . would have belonged to both husband and wife, as
community property.’” (quoting Zaragosa v. Craven, 33 Cal. 2d 315, 321 (1949))).
2 12-56017
We reject plaintiffs’ arguments that defendants lacked “constitutional
standing” to bring a motion to dismiss or that the district court lacked authority to
hear the motion.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-56017