NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BIG SKY CIVIL TR, No. 20-35897
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00050-BMM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BANK OF AMERICA, NA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Big Sky Civil TR appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing its action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res
judicata. Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005).
*
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).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Big Sky Civil TR’s action as barred by
the doctrine of res judicata because David Steven Braun, who is in privity with Big
Sky Civil TR, previously brought a federal action alleging nearly identical claims
against the same defendant that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See
Mpoyo, 430 F.3d at 987-88 (elements of federal res judicata; claims are identical if
they arise from the same transactional nucleus of facts); see also Taylor v. Sturgell,
553 U.S. 880, 894-95 (2008) (discussing requirements for non-party preclusion).
Contrary to Big Sky Civil TR’s contention, the district court properly applied
federal preclusion law because the prior judgment was rendered by a federal court
exercising federal-question jurisdiction. See Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft
Corp., 922 F.3d 1014, 1021 n.6 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[If] the decision to be given
preclusive effect was rendered by a federal court exercising federal-question
jurisdiction, federal common law determines whether preclusion applies.”).
Big Sky Civil TR’s motion for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 4) is
denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-35897