Case ID: f-appx_621/html/0485-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Brian ROSS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. BANK NA, as Trustee for the LXS 2007-7N Trust Fund, a National Association; BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP, a Texas Limited Partnership; All Persons Unknown Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien or Interest in the Property Described in the Complaint Adverse to Plaintiffs Title Thereto, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-56291.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted Oct. 21, 2015.
    Filed Oct. 30, 2015.
    Jeremy Jon Alberts, Esquire, Senior, Law Office of Jeremy J. Alberts, Fullerton, CA, Batkhand Zoljargal, The Alberts Firm, Santa Ana, CA, for. Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Allan Bareng, Esquire, Bryan Cave LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before: RAWLINSON and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges and PONSOR, Senior District Judge.
    
      
       The Honorable Michael A. Ponsor, Senior District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Appellant Brian Ross (Ross) challenges the district court’s dismissal of his federal complaint alleging that U.S. Bank improperly sought foreclosure of' his property.

The district court properly dismissed Ross’ federal complaint based on collateral estoppel. Ross’ federal claims are merely the same challenge premised on different legal theories to the foreclosure action that was conclusively resolved in state court. See Mills v. U.S. Bank, 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 896, 83 Cal.Rptr.3d 146 (2008) (articulating that “a former judgment ... is a collateral estoppel on issues which were raised, even though some factual matters or legal arguments which could have been presented were not”) (citations omitted) (emphasis in the original); see also Evans v. Celotex Corp., 194 Cal.App.3d 741, 746-47, 238 Cal.Rptr. 259 (1987) (stating that “[collateral estoppel bars relitigation of the same issues; it does not require identity of legal theories or causes of action. If it did, there would be no end to litigation for injuries arising out of the same facts, as long as a party could offer another legal theory by which the same issue might be differently decided”) (citation omitted).

Ross’ argument that collateral estoppel is inapplicable because U.S. Bank was not a party to the state action is unavailing. See DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber, 61 Cal.4th 813, 189 Cal.Rptr.3d 809, 352 P.3d 378, 387 (2015) (recognizing that “[o]nly the party against whom the doctrine is invoked must be bound by- the prior proceeding. ...”) (citation omitted) (emphasis in the original).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.