DENISE FULEIHAN V. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, No. 14-15024 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 05 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS DENISE HELEN FULEIHAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, No. 14-15024 D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01145-JCMNJK v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Denise Helen Fuleihan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging foreclosure-related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 381 (9th Cir. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 1998). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Fuleihan’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Fuleihan’s claims were raised, or could have been raised, in prior actions between the parties or their privies and those prior actions resulted in final judgments on the merits. See id. (elements of res judicata); see also Tahoe Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1081 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Even when the parties are not identical, privity may exist if there is substantial identity between parties, that is, when there is sufficient commonality of interest.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956-57 (9th Cir. 2002) (the doctrine of res judicata bars subsequent litigation both of claims that were raised and those that could have been raised in the prior action). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 14-15024

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.