Stephen Yagman v. Jesse Bray

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 18, 2022
• Docket: 21-55681
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 18 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN YAGMAN, No. 21-55681

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-02278-FMO-JC

v. MEMORANDUM* JESSE K. BRAY, AKA Jay Bray; CHRISTOPHER MARSHALL; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE HOLDINGS, INC.; NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC; MR. COOPER GROUP, INC.; NATIONSTAR CAPITAL CORPORATION; UNKNOWN NAMED DEFENDANTS, 1-10,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 12, 2022**

Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Stephen Yagman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

* 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). dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims in connection with his

home loan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Mpoyo v. Litton

Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Yagman’s action on the basis of claim

preclusion because Yagman raised, or could have raised, his claims in his prior

federal actions, which involved the same parties or their privies and resulted in

final judgments on the merits. See id. (setting forth elements of federal claim

preclusion); see also Yagman v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 783 F. App’x 790 (9th

Cir. 2019); Yagman v. Nationstar Mortg., LLC, 699 F. App’x 634 (9th Cir. 2017).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Yagman’s motion

for sanctions in connection with defendants’ res judicata arguments. See Holgate

v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 675-78 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth standard of review

and requirements for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11); Barber v. Miller, 146

F.3d 707, 709, 711 (9th Cir. 1998) (setting forth standard of review and

requirements for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927).

We reject as without merit Yagman’s contention that the district court erred

by considering the motions to dismiss despite defendants’ failure to meet and

confer timely under Local Rule 7-3.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

2 21-55681 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).

Defendants’ motion for sanctions (Docket Entry No. 22) is denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 21-55681