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NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 30 2015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. 13-56338
Debtor, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-09767-CAS
ADINA ZAHARESCU, MEMORANDUM*
Appellant,
v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING LLC; et al.,
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.
Adina Zaharescu appeals pro se from the district court’s decision affirming
*
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).
the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of her adversary complaint 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 based on appellees’ alleged lack of authority to initiate
foreclosure proceedings 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 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.”).
To the extent Zaharescu asserted claims based on appellees’ alleged misuse
of bankruptcy procedures, her claims are precluded by the Bankruptcy Code. See
Miles v. Okun (In re Miles), 430 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th Cir. 2005) (state law claims
2 13-56338
for bad-faith bankruptcy filings were precluded “[b]ecause Congress intended the
Bankruptcy Code to create a whole scheme under federal control that would adjust
all of the rights and duties of creditors and debtors alike”); MSR Exploration, Ltd.
v. Meridian Oil, Inc., 74 F.3d 910, 916 (9th Cir. 1996) (Bankruptcy Code preempts
debtor’s action for malicious prosecution against creditor for alleged filing of
invalid claims in bankruptcy proceedings).
We reject Zaharescu’s contentions concerning the impact of her objection to
proofs of claim filed in another bankruptcy proceeding, and her contention that she
should have received an opportunity to conduct discovery.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-56338