John B. Freeman, an individual v. THOMAS WHITTINGTON BERGAN AND STUDEBAKER INC. PS, Law Firm;

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).
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN B. FREEMAN, an individual,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THOMAS WHITTINGTON BERGAN
AND STUDEBAKER INC. PS, Law Firm;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-35634
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-01510-BHS
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
John B. Freeman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
FILED
MAR 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 08-35634 2
dismissing his action challenging a state court writ of garnishment against him.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Noel v. Hall,
341 F.3d 1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We may affirm on any ground supported by
the record. O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007).
We affirm.
The Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not apply when the action was filed
because there was no final state court judgment. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi
Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 292-93 (2005) (explaining that when there is
parallel state and federal litigation, disposition of the federal action, once the state
court adjudication is complete, is governed by preclusion law). Nevertheless, the
district court properly dismissed the action because the issue of whether Freeman’s
bank account contained funds exempt from garnishment was litigated by the
parties or their privies in state court and decided by the Washington courts in favor
of defendants. See Freeman v. Bergan, No. 05-2-26618-0SEA, slip op. at 1-2
(Wash. Super. Ct. Sept. 14, 2007); Freeman v. Bergan, No. 05-2-26618-0SEA, slip
op. at 1 (Wash. Super. Ct. Oct. 3, 2007); see also Rains v. State, 674 P.2d 165, 169
(Wash. 1983) (describing elements of issue preclusion under Washington law).
Freeman’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --