BIG SKY CIVIL TR v. BANK OF AMERICA NA (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

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). 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, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (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.