FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 03 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOUGLAS GILLIES, No. 13-55296
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-10394-GW-
MAN
v.
J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Douglas Gillies appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
diversity action asserting foreclosure-related claims. 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). We affirm.
*
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).
The district court properly dismissed Gillies’s action as barred by the
doctrine of res judicata because Gillies either raised, or could have raised, his
claims in his prior California state court action, which involved the same primary
rights, the same parties, and resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Fed’n
of Hillside & Canyon Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles, 24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 543, 557-58
(Ct. App. 2004) (setting forth elements of res judicata under California law and
noting that “[r]es judicata bars the litigation not only of issues that were actually
litigated but also issues that could have been litigated”).
We reject Gillies’s argument that California’s nonjudicial foreclosure regime
violates due process. See Apao v. Bank of N.Y., 324 F.3d 1091, 1094-95 (9th Cir
2003) (nonjudicial foreclosure is not state action and therefore does not implicate
due process).
Gillies’s request for judicial notice, filed on August 26, 2013, is granted.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-55296