LOPEZ v. MUFG UNION BANK (2019)

MEMORANDUM *

Arthur Lopez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights and antitrust action arising from a business loan transaction. 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, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lopez’s federal claims as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Lopez litigated these claims in a prior action that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth requirements of res judicata).

We lack jurisdiction to review the orders denying Lopez’s requests for reconsideration because Lopez failed to file an amended notice of appeal from those decisions. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th Cir. 2007) (a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional).

We reject as meritless Lopez’s contention that the district court violated his constitutional rights.

Lopez’s “request to enter audio CD” (Docket Entry No. 15) and requests for judicial notice, set forth in the opening brief, are denied as unnecessary.

AFFIRMED.