FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 7 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NANCY HOANG LE, No. 11-57151
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 8:11-cv-01083-AG-AN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BANK OF AMERICA, NA; PRLAP,
INC., Trustee,
Defendants - Appellees
and
BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Nancy Hoang Le appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her foreclosure-related action alleging a violation of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 11(b) and various provisions of state law. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res
judicata, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002), and we
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action as precluded by the doctrine
of res judicata (claim preclusion) because Le alleged claims arising out of the same
loan transaction and related foreclosure proceedings against the same defendant, or
an entity in privity with the current defendants, in two prior federal actions in
which there were final judgments on the merits. See id. at 956-57 (setting forth the
elements of the doctrine of res judicata, and noting that it bars subsequent litigation
of both claims that were raised and that could have been raised in the prior action);
Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 244 F.3d 708, 714 (9th Cir. 2001) (unless
otherwise specified, dismissal with prejudice of an action for failure to prosecute
operates as an adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
2 11-57151
Le’s “Informal Request,” filed November 20, 2013, is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-57151