Ritu Bala; Ajay Sood v. Bank of America, N.a.; Bac Home Loans Servicing

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RITU BALA; AJAY SOOD,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BAC HOME
LOANS SERVICING,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
BRANDON SHERMAN; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 15-56351
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-03305-MWF-
JEM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 16, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, BERZON, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
DEC 1 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 15-56351
Ritu Bala and Ajay Sood appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing their action alleging federal and state law violations arising from
several stages of Bala and Sood’s home loan financing efforts. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal based on res
judicata. Manufactured Home Cmtys. Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022,
1025 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bala and Sood’s action as barred by the
doctrine of res judicata because their claims were raised, or could have been raised,
in a prior state court action which resulted in a final judgment. See Manufactured
Home Cmtys. Inc., 420 F.3d at 1031 (“To determine the preclusive effect of a state
court judgment federal courts look to state law. . . . California’s res judicata
doctrine is based on a primary rights theory” (citation omitted)); MHC Financing
Ltd. P’ship v. City of San Rafael, 714 F.3d 1118, 1125 (9th Cir. 2013) (setting forth
elements of res judicata under California law). Contrary to Bala and Sood’s
contentions regarding new evidence, the declarations of Bank of America
employees do not negate the preclusive effect of res judicata on their current
action. See Brodheim v. Cry, 584 F.3d 1262, 1268 (9th Cir. 2009) (“If two actions
involve the same injury to the plaintiff and the same wrong by the defendant, then

-- 2 of 3 --

3 15-56351
the same primary right is at stake even if in the second suit the plaintiff pleads
different theories of recovery, seeks different forms of relief and/or adds new facts
supporting recovery.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); McClain v.
Apodaca, 793 F.2d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 1986) (plaintiff could not “avoid the bar of
res judicata merely by alleging conduct by the defendant not alleged in his prior
action or by pleading a new legal theory” (citation omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --