PROVIDENT FINANCIAL, INC. V., No. 10-60045 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 23 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT In re: PROVIDENT FINANCIAL, INC., Debtor, No. 10-60045 BAP No. 10-1135 GREGORY P. NESSELRODE, MEMORANDUM * Appellant, v. PROVIDENT FINANCIAL, INC., Appellee. 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. * 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). 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 10-60045

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.