Case ID: f-appx_675/html/0652-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Anna Maria PREZIO, individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Successor Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. Servicing Agent; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-55545
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted January 18, 2017 
    
    Filed JANUARY 31, 2017
    
      Anna Maria Prezio, Pro Se
    Alison Valerie Lippa, Attorney, Leslie M. Werlin, Esquire, McGuireWoods LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appel-lees
    Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. 
        See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Anna Maria Prezio appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims 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) on the basis of res judicata, Manufactured Home Cmtys. Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Prezio’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because her claims were raised, or could have been raised, in her prior state court action against the same parties, which resulted in a final adverse judgment on the merits. See id. at 1031 (“To determine the preclusive effect of a state court judgment federal courts look to state law.”); see also MHC Fin. Ltd. P’ship v. City of San Rafael, 714 F.3d 1118, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2013) (setting forth elements of res judicata under California law).

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

Because we affirm the dismissal on the basis of res judicata, we do not consider Prezio’s arguments addressing the merits of her claims.

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