John Harper, Lana Kudina v. Mark Bush;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 HARPER, LANA KUDINA,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
MARK BUSH; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-35613
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-05154-FDB
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Franklin D. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
John Harper and Lana Kudina appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment in their action arising from their offer to purchase a property in a
FILED
MAR 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 08-35613 2
residential development built by defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir.
2002). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because plaintiffs may not
relitigate whether defendants improperly discriminated against them by not
accepting their offer to purchase a property because those claims have already been
litigated, or could have been litigated, by the parties or their privies in state court.
See Harper v. Coldwell Banker Barbara Sue Seal Props., No. 35646-5-II, slip op.
at 1 (Wash. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2007) (affirming summary judgment in favor of
defendants or their privies); see also Chao v. A-One Med. Servs., Inc., 346 F.3d
908, 921 (9th Cir. 2003) (describing elements of res judicata under Washington
law).
Appellants’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Appellees’ motions filed on October 22, 2008 are granted. All other
pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --