N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
STEPHEN YAGM AN,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. NATIONSTAR

M OR TGAGE LLC ; NATIONSTAR

M OR TGAGE HOLDINGS, INC .; NATIONSTAR C APITAL C ORPOR

ATION; TEN UNKNOW

N NAM ED DEFENDANTS, De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-55693 D.C . No. 2:16-c v-08902-FM O-JC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Fe rnando M . Olguin, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Nove m

be r 6, 2019 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : SC HR OEDER , FR IEDLAND, a nd R
. NELSON, C irc u it Judge s. 

# FIL ED N OV 08 2019 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Pla intiff-Appe lla nt Ste phe n Ya gm an file d suit a g a inst Na t ionsta r M ortga ge , LLC a lle g ing tha

t the a ssignm e nt of his loa n to a se c uritiz e d trust wa s void. He
now a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing his c la im without le ave to a

m e nd. W e a ffirm
. Ya gm an’ s c la im is ba

rre d by re s judic ata . R e s judic ata a pplie s whe n a

c ourt ha s re a c he d

a fina l judgm e nt on the m e rits in a n e arlie r suit involving the sam e c la im s a nd pa rtie s a s a late r suit. Mpoy o v . Litton Ele c tro-Optic al Sy s. , 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th C ir. 2005). In Yagman v
. N ationstar Mortgage

, LLC , 699 Fe d. App’ x 634 (9th C i r. 2017) (“ Yagman I ” ), a c a se involving the

sa m e c la im s a

nd pa rtie s , we uphe ld the d i stric t c ourt’ s dism issa l without le a ve to a m e nd of Ya gm an’ s c la im
. This be c a m e a fina l judgm e nt. Ya gm an atte m

pts to distinguish his cla im from tha t in Yagman I

, a rguing that in this suit, he

is c ha lle nging only

those c olle c tion a

tte m pts tha t oc c urre d a fte r the c om pla i nt in Yagman I

wa s file d. This a

rgum e nt fa i ls, be c a

use re s judic ata

ba rs c la im s ba se d on ne w fa c tua l e ve nts whe n those e ve n ts a re pa rt of the sa

m e ongoing pra c tic e . Turtle

Island Re

storation N

e tw ork v . U.S. De

p’t of State , 673 F.3d 914, 918–19 (9th C ir. 2012). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Ya gm an’ s m otion to
am e nd his c om

pla int. As in Yagman I

, am e ndm e n t would ha

ve be e n futile , 2be c a

use e ve n if Ya gm an we re pe rm itte d to a m e nd his c o m

pla int, he c o uld not solve the proc e dura l de fe c ts we ide ntifie d in Yagman I . 699 Fe d. App’ x at 635; se e DC D Programs, Ltd. v. Le ighton , 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th C ir. 1987) (c iting futility
a s a re a son to de ny

le ave to a

m e nd). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in de ny ing Ya gm an’ s m otion to im pose sa nc tions, be c a

use Ya gm an is una

ble to e sta

b l ish tha t Nationsta

r’ s attorne y s we re re c kle ss or a c te d in ba d fa ith in bringing a m otion to dism

i ss for ina d e quate se rvic e of proc e ss. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 1927; Fink v . Gome z , 239 F.3d 989, 993 (9th C ir. 2001). AFFIRM E D.

3