United States v. 2020-06-11 | 19-56358 | STEPHEN JOHNSON V. CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC. | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEPHEN H. JOHNSON; PAULA A.
JOHNSON,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

CALIBER HOME LOANS, INC.; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-56358

D.C. No. 5:19-cv-01387-PA-GJS

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 2, 2020
**

Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Stephen H. Johnson and Paula A. Johnson appeal pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing their diversity action arising out of foreclosure
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
district court’s dismissal based on claim preclusion. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297

*
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

JUN 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-56358
F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Johnsons’ action on the basis of
claim preclusion because the action involved the same primary right raised in a
prior state court action that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See San
Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 734
(9th Cir. 2009) (federal court must follow state’s preclusion rules to determine
effect of a state court judgment; discussing elements of claim preclusion under
California law).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Johnsons’
motion to vacate or amend the judgment because the Johnsons failed to
demonstrate any basis for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or.
v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review and
grounds for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b)).
To the extent the Johnsons contend that the district court abused its
discretion by denying their request for judicial notice of Richard A. Kalinoski, Jr.’s
affidavit, we reject the contention as without merit. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.