DOUGLAS GILLIES V. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., No. 13-55296 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED MAR 03 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOUGLAS GILLIES, No. 13-55296 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-10394-GWMAN v. J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 24, 2016** Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. Douglas Gillies appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his diversity action asserting foreclosure-related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. * 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). The district court properly dismissed Gillies’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Gillies either raised, or could have raised, his claims in his prior California state court action, which involved the same primary rights, the same parties, and resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Fed’n of Hillside & Canyon Ass’ns v. City of Los Angeles, 24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 543, 557-58 (Ct. App. 2004) (setting forth elements of res judicata under California law and noting that “[r]es judicata bars the litigation not only of issues that were actually litigated but also issues that could have been litigated”). We reject Gillies’s argument that California’s nonjudicial foreclosure regime violates due process. See Apao v. Bank of N.Y., 324 F.3d 1091, 1094-95 (9th Cir 2003) (nonjudicial foreclosure is not state action and therefore does not implicate due process). Gillies’s request for judicial notice, filed on August 26, 2013, is granted. AFFIRMED. 2 13-55296

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.