Case ID: f-appx_710/html/0292-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mark A. VELASCO; Danika Velasco, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-35426
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 16, 2018 
    
    Filed January 19, 2018
    Jill J. Smith, Esquire, Attorney, Natural Resource Law Group, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants
    . Abraham K. Lorber, Attorney, David' Christopher Spellman, Esquire, Attorney, Lane Powell PC, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument, See Fed. R. App, P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Mark A. Velasco and Danika Velasco appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging a Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim for rescission. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Crest Grp., Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Velascos’ action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the Velascos alleged claims arising out of the same loan transaction against the same defendants in a prior state court action. See Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal courts must apply state law regarding res judicata to state court judgments); Seattle-First Nat’l Bank v. Kawachi, 91 Wash.2d 223, 588 P.2d 725, 727 (1978) (en banc) (elements of res judicata under Washington state law); Kelly-Hansen v. Kelly-Hansen, 87 Wash.App. 320, 941 P.2d 1108, 1112 (1997) (doctrine of res judicata bars litigation of claims that could have been raised in the prior action). We reject as meritless the Velascos’ argument that they could not have raised a TILA claim in their prior state court action.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.