In re: PROVIDENT FINANCIAL, INC. v. Provident Financial, Inc.

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: PROVIDENT FINANCIAL, INC.,
Debtor,
GREGORY P. NESSELRODE,
Appellant,
v.
PROVIDENT FINANCIAL, INC.,
Appellee.
No. 10-60045
BAP No. 10-1135
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Jury, Pappas, and Dunn, Bankruptcy Judges, Presiding
Submitted January 17, 2012**
Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JAN 23 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-60045 2
Gregory P. Nesselrode appeals pro se from the the Bankruptcy Appellate
Panel’s (“BAP”) judgment affirming the bankruptcy court’s order dismissing his
adversary proceeding as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 158(d). We review de novo the BAP’s and the
bankruptcy court’s decisions, Arrow Elecs., Inc. v. Justus (In re Kaypro), 218 F.3d
1070, 1073 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The bankruptcy court properly concluded that res judicata barred Nesselrode
from relitigating claims in connection with Provident Financial’s foreclosure of his
property because he had asserted claims arising from the same transactional
nucleus of facts in prior federal and state court actions. See Costantini v. Trans
World Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1201-02 (9th Cir. 1982) (res judicata bars all
claims based on the same “transactional nucleus of facts” which “could have been
asserted, whether they were or not, in a prior suit between the same parties”)
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Stanley L. and Carolyn M.
Watkins Trust v. Lacosta, 92 P.3d 620, 626 (Mont. 2004) (barring all claims where
“the issues are the same and relate to the same subject matter”).
Nesselrode’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --