Schubert v. The Bank of New York Mellon, 040319 FED9, 17-16647
|Party Name:||JAMES W. SCHUBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, as successor trustee to JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the Certificateholders of CWABS, Inc., CWABS Master Trust, Revolving Home Equity Loan Asset Backed Notes, Series 2004-K and BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: GOULD and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and MÁRQUEZ, District Judge. BERZON, Circuit Judge, dissenting.|
|Case Date:||April 03, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Argued and Submitted December 20, 2018 San Francisco, California
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00856-KAW Kandis A. Westmore, Magistrate Judge, Presiding.
Before: GOULD and BERZON, Circuit Judges, and MÁRQUEZ, [**] District Judge.
This case is Plaintiff James Schubert's sixth suit concerning an equity line of credit secured by a deed of trust on Schubert's real property. In this suit, Schubert asserts quiet title and declaratory relief claims against Defendants, The Bank of New York Mellon and Bank of America, N.A., asserting that he does not owe Defendants money on the equity line of credit and that the deed of trust should no longer burden his property. The district court dismissed Schubert's claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
1. We agree with the district court that Schubert's claims for quiet title and a declaration that he does not owe money on the equity line of credit are barred by res judicata because of the final judgment entered against Schubert in Schubert v. Bank of New York Mellon (Schubert V) in 2014. No. RG13662247 (Alameda Cty. Sup. Ct. Nov. 13, 2014). This case comes to us under diversity jurisdiction, and therefore requires us to apply California law, including California's res judicata principles, to Schubert's complaint. See Palomar Mobilehome Park Ass'n v. City of San Marcos, 989 F.2d 362, 364 (9th Cir. 1993). California law declares that an entire claim is precluded under res judicata if (1) the claim raised is identical to a claim brought in a prior proceeding, (2) the prior proceeding resulted in a final judgment on the merits, and (3) the claim is raised against a party to the prior proceeding or a party in privity with a party to the prior proceeding. Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 230 P.3d 342, 348 (Cal. 2010). The second and third...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP