Velasco v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. , 710 F. App'x 292 ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 19 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK A. VELASCO; DANIKA No. 16-35426
VELASCO, husband and wife,
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05022-RBL
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC
REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 16, 2018**
Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Mark A. Velasco and Danika Velasco appeal from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their action alleging a Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim
for rescission. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v.
Crest Grp., Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Velascos’ action as barred by the
doctrine of res judicata because the Velascos alleged claims arising out of the same
loan transaction against the same defendants in a prior state court action. See
Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal courts must
apply state law regarding res judicata to state court judgments); Seattle-First Nat’l
Bank v. Kawachi, 588 P.2d 725, 727 (Wash. 1978) (en banc) (elements of res
judicata under Washington state law); Kelly-Hansen v. Kelly-Hansen, 941 P.2d
1108, 1112 (Wash. 1997) (doctrine of res judicata bars litigation of claims that
could have been raised in the prior action). We reject as meritless the Velascos’
argument that they could not have raised a TILA claim in their prior state court
action.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-35426