Denise Fuleihan v. Wells Fargo Bank, Na

Ninth Circuit

Denise Fuleihan v. Wells Fargo Bank, Na

667 F. App'x 977

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedAugust 5, 2016

Docket14-15024

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 667 F. App'x 977 (Denise Fuleihan v. Wells Fargo Bank, Na) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Denise Fuleihan v. Wells Fargo Bank, Na, 667 F. App'x 977 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*978 MEMORANDUM **

Denise Helen Fuleihan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging foreclosure-related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.G. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 381 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Fuleihan’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Fuleihan’s claims were raised, or could have been raised, in prior actions between the parties or their privies and those prior actions resulted in final judgments on the merits. See id. (elements of res judicata); see also Tahoe Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1081 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Even when the parties are not identical, privity may exist if there is substantial identity between parties, that is, when there is sufficient commonality of interest.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956-57 (9th Cir. 2002) (the doctrine of res judicata bars subsequent litigation both of claims that were raised and those that could have been raised in the prior action).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*978 MEMORANDUM **

Denise Helen Fuleihan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging foreclosure-related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.G. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 381 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Fuleihan’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Fuleihan’s claims were raised, or could have been raised, in prior actions between the parties or their privies and those prior actions resulted in final judgments on the merits. See id. (elements of res judicata); see also Tahoe Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1081 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Even when the parties are not identical, privity may exist if there is substantial identity between parties, that is, when there is sufficient commonality of interest.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956-57 (9th Cir. 2002) (the doctrine of res judicata bars subsequent litigation both of claims that were raised and those that could have been raised in the prior action).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

667 F. App'x 977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denise-fuleihan-v-wells-fargo-bank-na-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack