Denise Fuleihan v. Wells Fargo Bank, Na ( 2016 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 05 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
DENISE HELEN FULEIHAN, No. 14-15024
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01145-JCM-
NJK
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Denise Helen Fuleihan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her diversity action alleging foreclosure-related claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis
of res judicata. Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 381 (9th Cir.
*
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).
1998). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Fuleihan’s action as barred by the
doctrine of res judicata because Fuleihan’s claims were raised, or could have been
raised, in prior actions between the parties or their privies and those prior actions
resulted in final judgments on the merits. See id. (elements of res judicata); see
also Tahoe Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d
1064, 1081 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Even when the parties are not identical, privity may
exist if there is substantial identity between parties, that is, when there is sufficient
commonality of interest.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Stewart
v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956-57 (9th Cir. 2002) (the doctrine of res judicata
bars subsequent litigation both of claims that were raised and those that could have
been raised in the prior action).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-15024