Case ID: f-appx_708/html/0361-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Glenn W. BEVER; Karen L. Bever, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION; CitiMortgage Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-15797
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 18, 2017 
    
    Filed December 21, 2017
    Glenn W. Bever, Pro Se
    Karen L. Bever, Pro Se
    Melissa Robbins Coutts, Esquire, Attorney, McCarthy & Holthus LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Quality Loan Service Corporation
    
      Lindsey Kress, Attorney, Regina J. McClendon, Attorney, Locke Lord LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appel-lee CitiMortgage Inc.
    Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Glenn W. Bever and Karen L. Bever appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act related to the foreclosure of their home. We have jurisdiction under' 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Headwaters, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Bevers’ action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the Bevers’ claims arose out of the same transactional nucleus of facts as them claim in a prior federal action between the parties or those in privity that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See id. at 1052 (elements of res judicata).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. 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.