Fayant v. U.S. Bancorp

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 20, 2026
• Docket: 24-4079
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM ROBERT FAYANT; JULIE L. No. 24-4079 FAYANT, D.C. No. 2:24-cv-00095-SAB Plaintiffs - Appellants,

v. MEMORANDUM*

U.S. BANCORP, doing business as US Bank National Association; GUILD MORTGAGE COMPANY, LLC, doing business as Cherry Creek Mortgage; FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION; JOHN AND JANE DOE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Stanley Allen Bastian, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2026**

Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

William Robert Fayant and Julie L. Fayant appeal pro se from the district

* 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). court’s judgment dismissing their diversity action alleging claims under

Washington law arising out of a loan secured by their property. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and based on res judicata. Holcombe v.

Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Fayants’ claim under the

Washington Deeds of Trust Act because, based on the record, no foreclosure had

taken place. See Wash. Rev. Code § 61.24.127; Frias v. Asset Foreclosure Servs.,

Inc., 334 P.3d 529, 534 (Wash. 2014) (holding that the Deeds of Trust Act does not

create a cause of action for violations of its terms in the absence of a completed

foreclosure sale).

The district court properly dismissed the Fayants’ remaining claims as

barred by res judicata because the Fayants previously brought an action against

U.S. Bank regarding the same causes of action and subject matter, resulting in a

final judgment on the merits. See Holcombe, 477 F.3d at 1097 (explaining that

federal courts must apply state law regarding res judicata to a prior state court

judgment); Karlberg v. Otten, 280 P.3d 1123, 1130 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012) (setting

forth elements of res judicata under Washington law and explaining that res

judicata prohibits the relitigation of claims and issues that were litigated, or could

have been litigated, in a prior action”); see also Feature Realty, Inc. v. Kirkpatrick

2 24-4079 & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, LLP, 164 P.3d 500, 505 (Wash. 2007) (explaining

that different defendants constitute the same party for res judicata purposes if they

are in privity).

AFFIRMED.

3 24-4079