PENSCO TRUST COMPANY FBO IRA 20005343 v. DELFIERRO (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Lorina Delfierro appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in this diversity action stemming from judicial foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo cross-motions for summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for PENSCO Trust Company, FBO Jeffrey D. Hermann, IRA Account Number 20005343 (“PENSCO”) because Delfierro failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether PENSCO was not entitled to seek judicial foreclosure. See Wash. Rev. Code 61.12.040 (requirements for judicial foreclosure); Deutsche Bank Nat. Trust Co. v. Slotke, 192 Wash.App. 166, 367 P.3d 600, 604 (2016) (“[I]t is the holder of the note who is entitled to enforce it.”).

The district court properly dismissed Delfierro’s counterclaims as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Delfierro’s counterclaims were raised, or could have been raised, in Delfierro’s prior action between the same parties that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review and stating that federal courts must apply state law regarding res judicata to state court judgments); Kelly-Hansen v. Kelly-Hansen, 87 Wash.App. 320, 941 P.2d 1108, 1112 (1997) (doctrine of res judicata bars litigation of claims that could have been raised in the prior action).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking Delfierro’s untimely response to PENSCO’s motion to dismiss her counterclaims. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that “[b]road deference is given to a district court’s interpretation of its local rules”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

We reject as meritless Delfierro’s contention that the re-recorded instruments create a new cause of action.

AFFIRMED.