713 Fed.Appx. 647 (9th Cir. 2018), 16-36055, Szmania v. E-Loan, Inc.

Docket Nº:16-36055
Citation:713 Fed.Appx. 647
Party Name:Daniel G. SZMANIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E-LOAN, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Attorney:Daniel G. Szmania, Pro Se John S. Devlin, III, Esquire, Abraham K. Lorber, Attorney, Lane Powell PC, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees Bear Stearns Arm Trust, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., John G. Stumpf Scott Douglas Crawford, Zieve, Brodnax & Steele, LLP, Portland, OR, for Benjamin D. Petiprin
Judge Panel:Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:February 23, 2018
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 647

713 Fed.Appx. 647 (9th Cir. 2018)

Daniel G. SZMANIA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

E-LOAN, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-36055

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

February 23, 2018

Submitted February 13, 2018 [*]

Editorial Note:

Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05644-RBL

Daniel G. Szmania, Pro Se

John S. Devlin, III, Esquire, Abraham K. Lorber, Attorney, Lane Powell PC, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees Bear Stearns Arm Trust, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., John G. Stumpf

Scott Douglas Crawford, Zieve, Brodnax & Steele, LLP, Portland, OR, for Benjamin D. Petiprin

Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[**]

Daniel G. Szmania appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his

Page 648

diversity action arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Szmania’s claim that defendants lacked authority to foreclose as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because this claim was raised or could have been raised in a previous action between the parties or their privies that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal courts apply state law regarding the res judicata effect of state court judgments); Williams v. Leone & Keeble, Inc., 171 Wn.2d 726, 254 P.3d 818, 821 (2011) (en banc) (setting forth elements of the doctrine of res judicata under Washington law); Southcenter Joint Venture v. Nat’l Democratic Policy Comm., 113 Wn.2d 413, 780 P.2d 1282, 1285 (1989) (en banc) ("[A] successor in interest to a party to an action that determines interests in property is subject to the preclusive...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP