Anna Maria Prezio, individual v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Successor Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. Servicing Agent;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANNA MARIA PREZIO, individual,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION,
Successor Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.
Servicing Agent; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-55545
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02778-CBM-JPR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2017**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Anna Maria Prezio appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
* 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
JAN 31 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-55545
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis of res
judicata, Manufactured Home Cmtys. Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022, 1025
(9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Prezio’s action as barred by the
doctrine of res judicata because her claims were raised, or could have been raised,
in her prior state court action against the same parties, which resulted in a final
adverse judgment on the merits. See id. at 1031 (“To determine the preclusive
effect of a state court judgment federal courts look to state law.”); see also MHC
Fin. Ltd. P’ship v. City of San Rafael, 714 F.3d 1118, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2013)
(setting forth elements of res judicata under California law).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Because we affirm the dismissal on the basis of res judicata, we do not
consider Prezio’s arguments addressing the merits of her claims.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --