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.
Esther L. ALLEY, aka Esther Jones-Alley, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MTGLQ INVESTORS, LP; Selene Finance, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership, Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Esther L. Alley appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging breach of contract claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Alley's claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because Alley failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Rekhter v. State, Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 180 Wash.2d 102, 323 P.3d 1036, 1041 (2014) (discussing the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Washington state law); Nw. Indep. Forest Mfrs. v. Dep't of Lab. & Indus., 78 Wash.App. 707, 899 P.2d 6, 9 (1995) (“A breach of contract is actionable only if the contract imposes a duty, the duty is breached, and the breach proximately causes damage to the claimant.”).
The district court properly dismissed as barred by res judicata Alley's claim under Washington's Deed of Trust Act because Alley had previously sued defendants in privity regarding the same causes of action and subject matter which resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Ensley v. Pitcher, 152 Wash.App. 891, 222 P.3d 99, 104 (2009) (setting forth the factors to determine whether a subsequent action is barred by res judicata under Washington state law).
Appellees’ motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 15) is granted.
AFFIRMED.
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. 20-35076
Decided: May 25, 2021
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)