Douglas Gillies v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. , 644 F. App'x 716 ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             MAR 03 2016
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    DOUGLAS GILLIES,                                 No. 13-55296
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:12-cv-10394-GW-
    MAN
    v.
    J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,                    MEMORANDUM*
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted February 24, 2016**
    Before:        LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    Douglas Gillies appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
    diversity action asserting foreclosure-related claims. We have jurisdiction under
    
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata.
    Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 
    297 F.3d 953
    , 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
    *
    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).
    The district court properly dismissed Gillies’s action as barred by the
    doctrine of res judicata because Gillies either raised, or could have raised, his
    claims in his prior California state court action, which involved the same primary
    rights, the same parties, 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
    , 557-58
    (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”).
    We reject Gillies’s argument that California’s nonjudicial foreclosure regime
    violates due process. See Apao v. Bank of N.Y., 
    324 F.3d 1091
    , 1094-95 (9th Cir
    2003) (nonjudicial foreclosure is not state action and therefore does not implicate
    due process).
    Gillies’s request for judicial notice, filed on August 26, 2013, is granted.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                       13-55296
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-55296

Citation Numbers: 644 F. App'x 716

Judges: Leavy, Fernandez, Rawlinson

Filed Date: 3/3/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024