Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0473-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joel P. ALCARMEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., fka Washington Mutual Bank; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-17147
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    OCTOBER 5, 2017
    Joel P. Alearmen, Hayward, CA, pro se.
    Joseph E. Addiego, III, Esquire, Litigation Counsel, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joel P. Alearmen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging various federal and state law claims related to foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court, properly dismissed Al-carmen’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Alcarmen’s claims were raised, or could have been raised, in prior actions between the parties or their privies, and those prior actions resulted in final judgments on the merits. See Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth elements of res judicata under federal law); Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. v. County of Santa Barbara, 604 F.3d 1142, 1148-49 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth elements of res judicata under California law).

We do not consider Alcarmen’s discovery rule argument because it was raised for the first time on appeal. See Solis v. Matheson, 563 F.3d 425, 437 (9th Cir. 2009) (arguments made for the first time on appeal and supported by facts not before the district court are waived).

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