NOT FOR PUBLICATION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, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 16

- 35923

C. HUGH JONSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

TED CHEPOLIS, an individual doing

business i n 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 rev iew 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) . W e 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 S tate 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 ( Was h. 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) (“ Un der 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 di d 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 ’ Federa l Rule of Appellate Procedure 38 motion s for fees

(Docket Entry No s . 11 and 13 in appeal No. 16

- 35923 ; Docket Entry No s

. 10 and

12 in appeal No. 16

- 35965; Docket Entry No s

. 8 and 10 in appeal No. 16

- 35978 )

are denied.

AFFIRMED

.