Case Name: Rodolfo VELASQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC; Fannie Mae, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-15
Citations: 475 F. App'x 252
Docket Number: No. 11-17173
Parties: Rodolfo VELASQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC; Fannie Mae, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 252–253

Head Matter:
Rodolfo VELASQUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC; Fannie Mae, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-17173.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 8, 2012.
Filed Aug. 15, 2012.
Rodolfo Velasquez, Vallejo, CA, pro se.
Sung-Min Christopher Yoo, Esquire, Santa Ana, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Velasquez’s request for oral argument is denied.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Rodolfo Velasquez appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action arising out of foreclosure proceedings as barred by the doctrine of res judi-cata. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Velasquez's action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Velasquez raised, or could have raised, these claims in his prior action that involved the same defendants and was decided on the merits. See id. (res judicata bars litigation in a subsequent action of " 'any claims that were raised or could have been raised' in a prior action" (emphasis and citation omitted)).
Velasquez's pending loan modification applications do not render this case moot because they do not resolve the parties' dispute. See Leigh v. Salazar, 677 F.3d 892, 896 (9th Cir.2012) (case is moot if events subsequent to the filing of the case resolve the parties' dispute).
Velasquez's requests for judicial notice are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.