Editha Salvador v. Meridias Capital, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 1, 2024
• Docket: 22-15989
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 1 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EDITHA SALVADOR, No. 22-15989

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-01732-APG-NJK v.

MERIDIAS CAPITAL, INC.; MEMORANDUM* COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC.; BANK OF AMERICA, NA; MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION; BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, FKA Bank of New York,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 1, 2024 **

Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Editha Salvador appeals the district court’s judgment in Salvador’s action

challenging the foreclosure of her home. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo. See Saloojas, Inc. v. Aetna Health of California, Inc.,

80 F.4th 1011, 1014 (9th Cir. 2023) (failure to state a claim); Frank v. United

Airlines, Inc., 216 F.3d 845, 849-50 (9th Cir. 2000) (claim preclusion). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Salvador’s due

process claims, because no state actor was named as a defendant. See 42 U.S.C. §

1983 (liability for deprivation of constitutional rights by persons acting under color

of state law).

The district court properly applied claim preclusion to dismiss defendants

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.; Bank of America, N.A.; Mortgage Electronic

Registration Systems, Inc.; Quality Loan Service Corp., and Bank of New York

Mellon, because Salvador’s claims against these defendants were litigated, or

could have been litigated, against these same defendants in state court. See White

v. City of Pasadena, 671 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir. 2012) (in determining preclusive

effect of state court judgment, federal courts follow state’s rules of preclusion);

Mendenhall v. Tassinari, 403 P.3d 364, 368 (Nev. 2017) (claim preclusion

requirements under Nevada state law).

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Salvador’s

claims against Meridias Capital, Inc., because Salvador failed to respond to the

2 district court’s order directing her to prosecute the claims. See Pagtalunan v.

Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640-41 (9th Cir. 2002).

AFFIRMED.