eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2015-03

Donnamay Brockbank v. Kevin Staples , 595 F. App'x 724 ( 2015 )


Menu:
 
  •                                                                             FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             MAR 04 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONNAMAY BROCKBANK; DENNIS                       No. 13-35548
LEE MOSES,
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-05168-RBL
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
KEVIN STAPLES; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before:        O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Donnamay Brockbank and Dennis Lee Moses appeal pro se from the district
court’s summary judgment in their action seeking relief under the Truth and
Lending Act, Regulation Z, and Washington state law. We have jurisdiction under
*
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).
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp,
    297 F.3d 953
    ,
956 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action as barred by the doctrine of
res judicata, because Brockbank and Moses had alleged claims arising out of the
same loan transaction and related foreclosure proceedings against the same
defendants in at least one prior action. See Holcombe v. Hosmer,
    477 F.3d 1094
    ,
1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal courts must apply state law regarding res judicata to
state court judgments); Seattle-First Nat’l Bank v. Kawachi,
    588 P.2d 725
    , 727
(Wash. 1978) (en banc) (elements of res judicata under Washington state law);
Kelly-Hansen v. Kelly-Hansen,
    941 P.2d 1108
    , 1112 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997)
(doctrine of res judicata bars litigation of claims that were or could have been
raised in the prior action).
Contrary to appellants’ contention, the district court was not required to
hold oral argument on the motion for summary judgment. See Partridge v. Reich,
    141 F.3d 920
    , 926 (9th Cir. 1998) (district court can decide summary judgment
without oral argument if parties have an opportunity to submit their papers to the
court); see also W.D. Wash. R. 7(d)(4) (“Unless otherwise ordered by the court, all
motions will be decided by the court without oral argument.”).
2                                    13-35548
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal
or in the reply brief. See Padgett v. Wright,
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
3                                    13-35548