Case Name: Glenn W. BEVER; Karen L. Bever, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION; CitiMortgage Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-21
Citations: 708 F. App'x 361
Docket Number: No. 16-15797
Parties: Glenn W. BEVER; Karen L. Bever, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION; CitiMortgage Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 708
Pages: 361–362

Head Matter:
Glenn W. BEVER; Karen L. Bever, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION; CitiMortgage Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-15797
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted December 18, 2017
Filed December 21, 2017
Glenn W. Bever, Pro Se
Karen L. Bever, Pro Se
Melissa Robbins Coutts, Esquire, Attorney, McCarthy & Holthus LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Quality Loan Service Corporation
Lindsey Kress, Attorney, Regina J. McClendon, Attorney, Locke Lord LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appel-lee CitiMortgage Inc.
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Glenn W. Bever and Karen L. Bever appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act related to the foreclosure of their home. We have jurisdiction under' 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Headwaters, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Bevers' action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the Bevers' claims arose out of the same transactional nucleus of facts as them claim in a prior federal action between the parties or those in privity that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See id. at 1052 (elements of res judicata).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.