FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 16 2017
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THEODOOR W. JANSON, No. 15-15632
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-05639-JSC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY, as Trustee for Morgan
Stanley Mortgage Loan Trust 2005-11AR;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jacqueline Scott Corley, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 14, 2017**
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, MURGUIA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
1. We affirm the district court’s order dismissing this action on the basis of
claim preclusion. Theodoor Janson seeks to vindicate the same primary right in
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Page 2 of 2
this action as in his prior state court action: the right to be free from a wrongful
foreclosure. See Gillies v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 213 Cal. Rptr. 3d 210,
216 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). Because the prior action resulted in a final judgment on
the merits between Janson and the same defendants or their privies, that judgment
bars this action. See Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 230 P.3d 342, 348 (Cal.
2010). That Janson challenges the foreclosure of his property on new legal
grounds is irrelevant to the claim preclusion analysis. The prior action precludes
all future claims with respect to the alleged violation of the same primary right that
could have been raised in the original action. See Busick v. Workmen’s Comp.
Appeals Bd., 500 P.2d 1386, 1392 (Cal. 1972). Janson has failed to identify any
legitimate reason why he could not have raised this action’s claims in his prior
action.
2. It was within the district court’s discretion to deny Janson leave to amend
his complaint. Amendment would be futile here because Janson has not identified
any new facts that he could allege that would save this action from his prior
action’s preclusive effect.
The defendants’ motion for judicial notice, filed December 9, 2015, is
GRANTED.
AFFIRMED.