KAMBIZ MORADI V. RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A., No. 20-35711 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 28 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KAMBIZ MORADI, husband; HOMA MORADI, wife, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-35711 D.C. No. 3:19-cv-01590-JR Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. RECONTRUST COMPANY, N.A.; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 20, 2021** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Kambiz Moradi and Homa Moradi appeal pro se from the district judgment in their diversity action arising from the foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Puri v. * 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). Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. Dismissal of plaintiffs’ action was proper because it was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See Lincoln Loan Co. v. Portland, 136 P.3d 1, 5-10 (Or. 2006) (explaining that res judicata applies to challenges based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction); Bloomfield v. Weakland, 123 P.3d 275, 279 (Or. 2005) (setting forth elements of res judicata under Oregon law and explaining that res judicata forecloses prelitigation of “any ground or theory of relief that the party could have litigated in the first instance”); see also Daewoo Elecs. Am. Inc. v. Opta Corp., 875 F.3d 1241, 1247 (9th Cir. 2017) (the preclusive effect of a judgment issued by a federal court sitting in diversity is determined by reference to the law of the state where the rendering federal diversity court sits). Plaintiffs’ contention, that they did not discover that they could bring this action until the Oregon Court of Appeals issued Wolf v. GMAC Mortgage, LLC, 370 P.3d 1254 (Or. Ct. App. 2016), lacks merit because plaintiffs’ initial action litigating matters arising from the foreclosure sale was filed in 2017, a year after Wolf was issued. AFFIRMED. 2 20-35711
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.
