MARK VELASCO V. MERS, No. 16-35426 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 19 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MARK A. VELASCO; DANIKA VELASCO, husband and wife, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-35426 D.C. No. 3:16-cv-05022-RBL Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 16, 2018** Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Mark A. Velasco and Danika Velasco appeal from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging a Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) claim for rescission. 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). Intri-Plex Techs., Inc. v. Crest Grp., Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the Velascos’ action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the Velascos alleged claims arising out of the same loan transaction against the same defendants in a prior state court action. See Holcombe v. Hosmer, 477 F.3d 1094, 1097 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal courts must apply state law regarding res judicata to state court judgments); Seattle-First Nat’l Bank v. Kawachi, 588 P.2d 725, 727 (Wash. 1978) (en banc) (elements of res judicata under Washington state law); Kelly-Hansen v. Kelly-Hansen, 941 P.2d 1108, 1112 (Wash. 1997) (doctrine of res judicata bars litigation of claims that could have been raised in the prior action). We reject as meritless the Velascos’ argument that they could not have raised a TILA claim in their prior state court action. We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 16-35426

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.