643 Fed.Appx. 666 (9th Cir. 2016), 13-17198, Callan v. New York Community Bank

Docket Nº:13-17198
Citation:643 Fed.Appx. 666
Party Name:KATHLEEN CALLAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NEW YORK COMMUNITY BANK, Defendant - Appellee
Attorney:For KATHLEEN CALLAN, Plaintiff - Appellant: Michael Patrick Rooney, Esquire, Attorney, Michael Rooney Law Office, San Francisco, CA. For NEW YORK COMMUNITY BANK, Defendant - Appellee: Jillian A. Benbow, Pite Duncan, LLP, San Diego, CA; Stephen T. Kitagawa, Attorney, Pite Duncan, LLP, Irvine, CA.
Judge Panel:Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:March 23, 2016
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 666

643 Fed.Appx. 666 (9th Cir. 2016)

KATHLEEN CALLAN, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

NEW YORK COMMUNITY BANK, Defendant - Appellee

No. 13-17198

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

March 23, 2016

Submitted March 15, 2016, [**]

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. D.C. No. 4:12-cv-03563-SBA. Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding.

AFFIRMED.

For KATHLEEN CALLAN, Plaintiff - Appellant: Michael Patrick Rooney, Esquire, Attorney, Michael Rooney Law Office, San Francisco, CA.

For NEW YORK COMMUNITY BANK, Defendant - Appellee: Jillian A. Benbow, Pite Duncan, LLP, San Diego, CA; Stephen T. Kitagawa, Attorney, Pite Duncan, LLP, Irvine, CA.

Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[*]

Kathleen Callan appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging state law claims relating to the foreclosure of her property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis of res judicata. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Callan's action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Callan could have raised her claims in her prior California state court action, which involved the same primary right, 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, 126 Cal.App.4th 1180, 24 Cal.Rptr.3d 543, 557 (Ct.App. 2004) (setting forth elements of res judicata under California law).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in sua sponte taking judicial notice of Callan's complaint, New York Community

Page 667

Bank's demurrer, and the resulting judgment in Callan's state court action and considering these documents in ruling on the motion to dismiss. See Fed.R.Evid. 201(c), (d) (a court " may take judicial notice on its own" at any stage of the proceeding); Reyn's Pasta...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP