N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT C R AIG HAR T; C AR OLE PINKNEYHAR T, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. B ANK OF AM E R IC A NA, sue d e rrone o usly

a s B a nk of Am e ric a

Hom e Loa n s; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-56434 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-03372-M W FPLA 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 M ic h a e l W . Fitz ge ra ld, Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d

June 25, 2014 ** B e fore : HAW K INS, TALLM AN, a nd NGUYEN, C i rc u it Judge s. C ra ig a nd C arole -Pinkne y

Ha rt a ppe a l pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing the i r fore c losure a c tion a lle ging a fe de ra l c la im

unde r the Fa ir De bt 

# FIL ED JUL 03 2014 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 9th C ir. R . 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 oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).C olle c tion Pra c tic e s Ac t (“ FDC PA” ) a nd va rious sta t e la w c la im s . W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo both a de nia l of a

m otion to re m a nd, Sparta Surgical C

orp. v . N at’l Ass’n of Sec . De ale rs, Inc . , 159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9th C ir. 1998), a n d a dism i ssa l on theba sis of thedoc trine of re s judic ata , Ste w art v . U.S. Banc orp , 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th C ir. 2002). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly de nie d pla intiffs’ m otion to re m and be c a use pla i ntiffs’ FDC PA c l a im

gave the c ourt fe de ra l jurisdic tion ove r the e ntire a c tion, inc l uding sta

te la w c la im s a

rising out of the

sa m e loa n tra nsa c tion a n d fore c losure proc e e dings. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 1367 (a llowing discre tiona ry e xe rc ise of jurisdic tion ove r state la

w c la im s re l ate d to fe de ra l c a u se of a c tion); Sparta Surgical C orp. , 159 F.3d at 1211-13 (a c t i on is prope rly re m ove d whe re e xiste nc e of fe d e ra l jurisdic tion is c le ar from the fa c e of the c o m pla int, a nd pa rty m ay not c om pe l re m a nd by try ing to e l im inate the fe de ra l que stion upon which re m ova l wa s ba se d); Sw anson v . S. Or. C re dit Se rv ., Inc . , 869 F.2d 1222, 1224 (9th C ir. 1988) (pe r c uriam ) (distric t c ourt ha s jurisdic tion ove r FDC PA c la im unde r 15 U.S.C . § 1692k(d)). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the a c t ion a s pre c lude d by the doc trine of re s judic ata

be c a use pla intiffs a lle ge d ne arly ide ntic a l c la im s a

rising out of the sam e loa n tra n sa c tion a nd re l ate d fore c l osure proc e e dings a ga i nst the sam e de fe nda nts in two prior ac tions in which the re we re fina l judgm e nts on them e rits. 1 2 - 5 6 4 3 4 2Se eSte w a rt , 297 F.3d a t 956-57 (se tting forth e le m e nts of thedoc trine of re s judic ata , a

nd noting tha

t it ba rs subse q ue nt litiga

tion of both c la im s tha

t we re ra ise d a nd thosetha

t c o uld ha ve be e n ra ise d in theprior a c tion); Ow e ns v . K aise r Found. He a lth Plan , 244 F.3d 708, 714 (9th C ir. 2001) (unle ss othe rwise spe c ifie d, dism issa l of a

n a c tion for fa ilure to prose c ute ope rate s a s a n a djudic ation on the m e rits for purpose s of a

pply ing thedoc trine of re s judic ata ). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

de ny i ng le ave to a

m e nd be c a use am e ndm e nt would ha ve be e n futile . Se eSe r

ra v . Lappin , 600 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9th C ir. 2010). B e c a use we a ffirm

dism i ssa l on the ba sis of thedoc trine of re s judic ata , we do not c o nside r pla i ntiffs’ re ga rding thea lle ge d m e rits of the ir c l a im s. Pla intiffs’ c onte ntions tha t dismissa l of the a c tion wa s in viola t ion of public polic y , tha

t the distric t c o urt im

prope rly looke d be y ond theple a dings or fa ile d to give prope r c onside ration to the ir m otion to re m and, a nd tha t the y we re im prope rly de nie d the opportunity

to c onduc t disc ove ry , a

re unpe rsua sive . B e c a use pla intiffs did not file

a re p ly brie f, de fe nda

nts’ re q ue st to filea surre ply , se t forth in the i r answe ring brie f, is de nie d a s m oot. AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 5 6 4 3 4 3