NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 5 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOEL P. ALCARMEN, No. 16-17147
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:16-cv-04408-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., FKA
Washington Mutual Bank; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Joel P. Alcarmen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging various federal and state law claims related to
foreclosure proceedings. 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,
*
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).
297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Alcarmen’s action as barred by the
doctrine of res judicata because Alcarmen’s claims were raised, or could have been
raised, in prior actions between the parties or their privies, and those prior actions
resulted in final judgments on the merits. See Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v.
Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2013) (setting forth
elements of res judicata under federal law); Adam Bros. Farming, Inc. v. County of
Santa Barbara, 604 F.3d 1142, 1148-49 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth elements of
res judicata under California law).
We do not consider Alcarmen’s discovery rule argument because it was
raised for the first time on appeal. See Solis v. Matheson, 563 F.3d 425, 437 (9th
Cir. 2009) (arguments made for the first time on appeal and supported by facts not
before the district court are waived).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-17147