FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NOV 08 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN YAGMAN, No. 18-55693
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:16-cv-08902-FMO-JC
v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC; MEMORANDUM*
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE
HOLDINGS, INC.; NATIONSTAR
CAPITAL CORPORATION; TEN
UNKNOWN NAMED DEFENDANTS,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 6, 2019**
Pasadena, California
Before: SCHROEDER, FRIEDLAND, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Plaintiff-Appellant Stephen Yagman filed suit against Nationstar Mortgage,
LLC alleging that the assignment of his loan to a securitized trust was void. He
now appeals the district court’s order dismissing his claim without leave to amend.
We affirm.
Yagman’s claim is barred by res judicata. Res judicata applies when a court
has reached a final judgment on the merits in an earlier suit involving the same
claims and parties as a later suit. Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d
985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005). In Yagman v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, 699 Fed.
App’x 634 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Yagman I”), a case involving the same claims and
parties, we upheld the district court’s dismissal without leave to amend of
Yagman’s claim. This became a final judgment.
Yagman attempts to distinguish his claim from that in Yagman I, arguing
that in this suit, he is challenging only those collection attempts that occurred after
the complaint in Yagman I was filed. This argument fails, because res judicata bars
claims based on new factual events when those events are part of the same ongoing
practice. Turtle Island Restoration Network v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 673 F.3d 914,
918–19 (9th Cir. 2012).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Yagman’s motion to
amend his complaint. As in Yagman I, amendment would have been futile,
2
because even if Yagman were permitted to amend his complaint, he could not
solve the procedural defects we identified in Yagman I. 699 Fed. App’x at 635; see
DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing futility
as a reason to deny leave to amend).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Yagman’s motion to
impose sanctions, because Yagman is unable to establish that Nationstar’s
attorneys were reckless or acted in bad faith in bringing a motion to dismiss for
inadequate service of process. See 28 U.S.C. § 1927; Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d
989, 993 (9th Cir. 2001).
AFFIRMED.
3