MICHAEL SPARLIN V. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INCORPO, No. 11-17259 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 10 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL B. SPARLIN; SHARON J. SPARLIN, No. 11-17259 D.C. No. 4:11-cv-00371-DCB Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INCORPORATED; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 19, 2013** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Michael B. and Sharon J. Sparlin appeal pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing their action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1291. We review de novo a dismissal based on * 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). preclusion principles. Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045, 1064 (9th Cir. 2010) (collateral estoppel); Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (res judicata). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm. Dismissal of the Sparlins action as barred by the doctrines of collateral estoppel and res judicata was proper because the Sparlins had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues and claims arising out of the foreclosure proceedings at issue in their prior action against nearly identical defendants, and that action was dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. See Wolfson, 616 F.3d at 1064 (discussing elements of collateral estoppel); Stewart, 297 F.3d at 956-57 (discussing elements of res judicata, and noting that dismissal for failure to state a claim constitutes a final judgment on the merits to which res judicata applies). The Sparlins contentions regarding the denial of discovery and alleged violations of their civil rights are unpersuasive. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). AFFIRMED. 2 11-17259

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.