NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

C. HUGH JONSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

TED CHEPOLIS, an individual doing 

business in Skagit County, Washington; et 

al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-35923 

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01220-RSM 

MEMORANDUM*

C. HUGH JONSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

TED CHEPOLIS, an individual doing 

business in Skagit County, Washington, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

PHILLIP JENNINGS, an individual doing 

business in King County, Washington; et al., 

Defendants.

No. 16-35965 

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01220-RSM 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

AUG 17 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 16-35923 

C. HUGH JONSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

TED CHEPOLIS, an individual doing 

business in Skagit County, Washington, 

Defendant, 

and 

PHILLIP JENNINGS, an individual doing 

business in King County, Washington; et al., 

Defendants-Appellants.

No. 16-35978 

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01220-RSM 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ricardo S. Martinez, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 9, 2017**

Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

C. Hugh Jonson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

his action alleging violations of federal law. Defendants cross-appeal from the 

district court’s order denying their motions for sanctions. We have jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 

 

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
3 16-35923 

953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal on the basis of res 

judicata); Hiser v. Franklin, 94 F.3d 1287, 1290 (9th Cir. 1996) (summary 

judgment). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnson v. 

Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendant 

Chepolis and properly dismissed Jonson’s claims against the remaining defendants 

on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata because Jonson asserted the same claim 

against the same defendants concerning the same subject matter in a prior 

Washington State court action that was dismissed with prejudice. See Intri-Plex 

Techs., Inc. v. Crest Grp., Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal courts 

look to state law to determine the preclusive effect of a state court judgment);

Williams v. Leone & Keeble, Inc., 254 P.3d 818, 821 (Wash. 2011) (en banc)

(setting forth elements of the doctrine of res judicata under Washington law);

Fluke Capital & Mgmt. Servs. Co. v. Richmond, 724 P.2d 356, 361 (Wash. 1986)

(en banc) (“Under the doctrine of res judicata . . . a claim decided in a prior action 

cannot be raised in a subsequent action . . . . A claim includes all rights of the 

[claimant] to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the 

transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action arose,

without regard to whether the issues actually were raised or litigated.” (citation and 

internal quotation marks omitted)).
4 16-35923 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendants’ 

motions for sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 because defendants 

failed to establish grounds for sanctions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b); Christian v. 

Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of 

review and describing grounds for Rule 11 sanctions).

Defendants’ Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 motions for fees 

(Docket Entry Nos. 11 and 13 in appeal No. 16-35923; Docket Entry Nos. 10 and

12 in appeal No. 16-35965; Docket Entry Nos. 8 and 10 in appeal No. 16-35978) 

are denied.

AFFIRMED.