Martin Eng v. Washington Mutual Bank, Fa;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN ENG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, FA;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-15457
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05062-WHA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Martin Eng appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
diversity action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of the doctrine of
FILED
DEC 4 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

res judicata, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002), and we
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Eng’s action as barred by the doctrine
of res judicata because Eng alleged claims arising out of the same loan transaction
and related foreclosure proceedings against the same defendants in a prior federal
action in which there was a final judgment on the merits. See id. at 956 (setting
forth the elements of the doctrine of res judicata, and noting that it bars subsequent
litigation of claims that were raised or could have been raised in the prior action).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring Eng a vexatious
litigant and entering a prefiling order against him after giving him notice and an
opportunity to be heard, developing an adequate record for review, making
findings regarding Eng’s frivolous and harassing litigation history, and tailoring
the restriction narrowly. See De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146-48 (9th
Cir. 1990) (setting forth standard of review and factors for entry of a prefiling
order).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Eng leave to amend
because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review
13-15457 2

-- 2 of 3 --

and noting that the district court may dismiss without leave to amend when
amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.
13-15457 3

-- 3 of 3 --