ANNA PREZIO V. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, No. 15-55545 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 31 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANNA MARIA PREZIO, individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-55545 D.C. No. 2:14-cv-02778-CBM-JPR MEMORANDUM* BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, Successor Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. Servicing Agent; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 18, 2017** Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Anna Maria Prezio appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a * 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). dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis of res judicata, Manufactured Home Cmtys. Inc. v. City of San Jose, 420 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Prezio’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because her claims were raised, or could have been raised, in her prior state court action against the same parties, which resulted in a final adverse judgment on the merits. See id. at 1031 (“To determine the preclusive effect of a state court judgment federal courts look to state law.”); see also MHC Fin. Ltd. P’ship v. City of San Rafael, 714 F.3d 1118, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2013) (setting forth elements of res judicata under California law). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Because we affirm the dismissal on the basis of res judicata, we do not consider Prezio’s arguments addressing the merits of her claims. AFFIRMED. 2 15-55545

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.