Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Jean Marie BARTON; Byron Lee Barton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP OF WASHINGTON; Triangle Property of Washington, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-35798

Decided: September 17, 2020

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Jean Marie Barton, Pro Se Byron Lee Barton, Pro Se Joseph W. McIntosh, McCarthy & Holthus LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appellee Quality Loan Service Corp of Washington David James Lawyer, Attorney, Inslee, Best, Doezie & Ryder, P.S., Bellevue, WA, for Defendant-Appellee Triangle Property of Washington


Jean Marie Barton and Byron Lee Barton appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal based on claim preclusion); Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (sua sponte dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Bartons’ action on the basis of res judicata because the Bartons’ claims were raised or could have been raised in previous actions between the parties that resulted in final adjudications on the merits. See San Diego Police Officers’ Ass'n v. San Diego City Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (federal court must follow state's preclusion rules to determine effect of a state court judgment); Ofuasia v. Smurr, 198 Wash.App. 133, 392 P.3d 1148, 1154 (2017) (elements of res judicata under Washington law).

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).


Copied to clipboard