Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Steven Harry LUCORE, Sr.; Judy Lynne Lucore, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE FOR the CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF BANK OF AMERICA FUNDING CORPORATION MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-H; Bank of America, NA, Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Steven Harry Lucore, Sr. and Judy Lynne Lucore appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their diversity action alleging state law claims arising from a foreclosure sale on their real property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal based on res judicata. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Lucores’ California Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”) claim as barred by res judicata because this claim was based on the same primary right asserted in a prior state court action and all other elements for the application of res judicata were met. See Manufactured Home Cmtys., Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022, 1031 (9th Cir. 2005) (“To determine the preclusive effect of a state court judgment federal courts look to state law.”); Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 48 Cal.4th 788, 108 Cal.Rptr.3d 806, 230 P.3d 342, 348 (2010) (elements of res judicata under California law).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the RFDCPA claim because amendment would have been futile. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 949, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend can be denied if amendment would be futile).
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); see also Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Burlington N. R.R., 23 F.3d 1508, 1511 n.5 (9th Cir. 1994) (“Facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
The Lucores’ request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 8) is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-55315
Decided: November 18, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)