Van Damme v. U.S. Bank National Association

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 20, 2026
• Docket: 24-7767
• Status: Unpublished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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARMIN VAN DAMME, No. 24-7767 D.C. No. 2:24-cv-01287-JAD-BNW Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM* U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2026**

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

Armin Van Damme appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his diversity action alleging various claims in connection with real

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

* 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). dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis of claim

preclusion. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Van Damme’s quiet title claims

because Van Damme raised, or could have raised, his claims in a prior federal

action, which involved the same party and resulted in a final judgment on the

merits. See Daewoo Elecs. Am. Inc. v. Opta Corp., 875 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.

2017) (explaining that when a federal court with diversity jurisdiction assesses the

preclusive effect of a prior federal court sitting in diversity, “the second court must

apply preclusion principles according to the law of the initial court’s state”); Five

Star Cap. Corp. v. Ruby, 194 P.3d 709, 713 (Nev. 2008) (setting forth the elements

of claim preclusion under Nevada law).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-7767