Grant W. Richards; Julie L. Richards v. Aurora Loan Services; Cal- Western Reconveyance Corporation

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
*** 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
GRANT W. RICHARDS; JULIE L.
RICHARDS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES; CAL-
WESTERN RECONVEYANCE
CORPORATION,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-35838
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-00970-SU
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Patricia Sullivan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted September 24, 2013***
Before: RAWLINSON, N.R. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
FILED
OCT 04 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-35838 2
Grant W. and Julie L. Richards (“plaintiffs”) appeal pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing their action arising out of foreclosure proceedings as
barred by the doctrine of res judicata. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir.
2007). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action as barred by the
doctrine of res judicata because of the adverse judgment in plaintiffs’ prior Oregon
state court action involving the same defendants and factual transaction. See id.
(federal courts must apply state law regarding res judicata to state court
judgments); Rennie v. Freeway Transp., 656 P.2d 919, 921 (Or. 1982) (en banc)
(under Oregon law, an action is precluded if it involves the same defendant and
factual transaction as a prior action, seeks remedies additional or alternative to
those sought earlier, and raises claims that could have been joined in the first
action).
Plaintiffs’ request that we vacate the Oregon state court judgment is barred
by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041, 1050
(9th Cir. 2010) (Rooker-Feldman doctrine prohibits lower federal courts from
reviewing state court decisions).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --