CAROLINE BIRK V. ROYAL CROWN BANCORP, INC., No. 16-16737 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED OCT 3 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CAROLINE BIRK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-16737 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00446-KJMCMK v. ROYAL CROWN BANCORP, INC.; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Caroline Birk appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims relating to her loan and a subsequent foreclosure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, * 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). 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Birk’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Birk’s claims arose from the same transactional nucleus of facts and could have been raised in her prior action, which resulted in a final judgment. See Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005) (setting forth elements for res judicata and requirements for identity of claims and final judgment on the merits). Birk’s challenge to the district court’s denial of her motion for a temporary restraining order is moot. See Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Madigan, 954 F.2d 1441, 1450 (9th Cir. 1992) (when underlying claims have been decided, the reversal of a denial of preliminary injunctive relief would have no practical consequences, and the issue is therefore moot). AFFIRMED. 2 16-16737

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.