DARYOUSH JAVAHERI V. U.S. BANK, N.A., No. 20-56079 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 27 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DARYOUSH JAVAHERI, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-56079 D.C. No. 2:20-cv-07204-ODWRAO v. U.S. BANK, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 MEMORANDUM* Master Participation Trust; DOES, 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 17, 2021** Before: SILVERMAN, CHRISTEN, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Daryoush Javaheri appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. * 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). Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017) (dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)); Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal on the basis of res judicata). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Javaheri’s action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because Javaheri’s claims were raised, or could have been raised, in his prior federal action, which involved parties in privity, and resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See id. at 987-88 (elements of federal res judicata; claims are identical if they arise from the same transactional nucleus of facts). 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). AFFIRMED. 2 20-56079

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.