Szmania v. E-Loan, Inc., 022318 FED9, 16-36055

Docket Nº:16-36055
Party Name:DANIEL G. SZMANIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. E-LOAN, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
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

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted February 13, 2018 [**]

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

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

MEMORANDUM [*]

Daniel G. Szmania appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 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., 254 P.3d 818, 821 (Wash. 2011) (en banc) (setting forth elements of the doctrine of res judicata under Washington law); Southcenter Joint Venture v. Nat'l Democratic Policy Comm., 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 effects of that action." (citations omitted)).

We reject as without merit Szmania's contention that defendants were time-barred from collecting on the note. See Edmundson v. Bank of Am., 378 P.3d 272, 277-78 (Wash.Ct.App. 2016) (statute of limitations period on a claim...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP