ARTHUR LOPEZ V. MUFG UNION BANK, N.A., No. 18-55748 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 30 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARTHUR LOPEZ, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-55748 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:17-cv-01466-JLS-KES v. MEMORANDUM* MUFG UNION BANK, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 21, 2019** Before: Judges. THOMAS, Chief Judge, and FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Arthur Lopez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights and antitrust action arising from a business loan transaction. 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). * 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). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Lopez’s federal claims as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Lopez litigated these claims in a prior action that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth requirements of res judicata). We lack jurisdiction to review the orders denying Lopez’s requests for reconsideration because Lopez failed to file an amended notice of appeal from those decisions. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii); Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th Cir. 2007) (a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional). We reject as meritless Lopez’s contention that the district court violated his constitutional rights. Lopez’s “request to enter audio CD” (Docket Entry No. 15) and requests for judicial notice, set forth in the opening brief, are denied as unnecessary. AFFIRMED. 2 18-55748

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.