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.
Frederick O. SILVER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles W. SCHARF; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Frederick O. Silver appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) 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 Silver's action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Silver litigated the same claims in Texas state court against the same parties or their privies which resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U.S. 461, 466, 102 S.Ct. 1883, 72 L.Ed.2d 262 (1982) (federal courts are required to give a state court judgment the same preclusive effect that it would be given by the courts of the state from which it emerged); Amstadt v. United States Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644, 652 (Tex. 1996) (stating criteria for res judicata under Texas law); Sommers v. Concepcion, 20 S.W.3d 27, 39 (Tex. App. 2000) (holding a dismissal with prejudice is considered a final ruling on the merits for the purposes of res judicata).
We reject as meritless Silver's contention that the district court erred in taking judicial notice of documents.
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).
Silver's motions to take judicial notice of fraud upon the court (Docket Entry Nos. 22, 24) are denied. Silver's motion to expedite the case (Docket Entry No. 28) is denied as moot. Silver's request for costs as set forth in his opening brief is denied. Silver's motion to file an amended opening brief (Docket Entry No 20) is construed as a motion to file a reply brief and is granted. The Clerk is directed to file the reply brief at Docket Entry 19.
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. 20-17426
Decided: September 23, 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)