Adina Zaharescu V. , 601 F. App'x 534 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: ADINA ZAHARESCU, No. 13-56339
Debtor, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-09773-CAS
ADINA ZAHARESCU, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE
COMPANY; AMERIQUEST
MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC.,
Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 22, 2015**
Before: GOODWIN, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Adina Zaharescu appeals pro se from the district court’s decision affirming
the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of her adversary proceeding alleging violations of
state and federal law in connection with foreclosure proceedings. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review independently the bankruptcy
court’s decision without deference to the district court’s determinations. Leichty v.
Neary (In re Strand), 375 F.3d 854, 857 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm the
bankruptcy court’s decision on any ground supported by the record. Olsen v.
Zerbetz (In re Olsen), 36 F.3d 71, 73 (9th Cir. 1994). We affirm.
Zaharescu’s claims against appellees were properly dismissed because those
claims were raised and decided on the merits, or could have been raised, in her
prior district court action against the same defendants or their privies. See United
States v. Liquidators of European Fed. Credit Bank, 630 F.3d 1139, 1150 (9th Cir.
2011) (setting forth elements of res judicata requirements and factors for
establishing identity of claims); Tahoe–Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l
Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1081 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[A] dismissal on statute
of limitations grounds is a judgment on the merits.”).
We reject Zaharescu’s contentions concerning the impact of her objection to
proofs of claim filed in another bankruptcy proceeding.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-56339