Rodolfo Velasquez v. Chase Home Finance LLC; Fannie Mae

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). Accordingly, Velasquez’s
request for oral argument is denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODOLFO VELASQUEZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC;
FANNIE MAE,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17173
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01019-GEB-
JFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 8, 2012**
Before: ALARCÓN, BERZON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Rodolfo Velasquez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action arising out of foreclosure proceedings as barred by the
FILED
AUG 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-17173 2
doctrine of res judicata. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Velasquez’s action as barred by the
doctrine of res judicata because Velasquez raised, or could have raised, these
claims in his prior action that involved the same defendants and was decided on the
merits. See id. (res judicata bars litigation in a subsequent action of “‘any claims
that were raised or could have been raised’ in a prior action” (emphasis and citation
omitted)).
Velasquez’s pending loan modification applications do not render this case
moot because they do not resolve the parties’ dispute. See Leigh v. Salazar, 677
F.3d 892, 896 (9th Cir. 2012) (case is moot if events subsequent to the filing of the
case resolve the parties’ dispute).
Velasquez’s requests for judicial notice are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --