BIG SKY CIVIL TR v. BANK OF AMERICA NA (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-29No. No. 20-35897

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that Big Sky Civil Trust's action was properly barred by the doctrine of res judicata because a prior federal judgment rendered on nearly identical claims against the same defendant by a party in privity with Big Sky Civil Trust constituted a final judgment on the merits.

Big Sky Civil Trust appealed a district court's dismissal of its lawsuit against Bank of America, which raised both federal and state law claims. The lower court had dismissed the case based on the doctrine of res judicata—the legal principle that a claim cannot be relitigated once it has been finally resolved. The appellate court found that David Steven Braun, who shares a legal interest (privity) with Big Sky Civil Trust, had previously filed a nearly identical federal lawsuit against the same defendant in federal court, resulting in a final judgment on the merits. Because the claims arose from the same underlying facts and circumstances, and because the prior judgment was final, the current lawsuit was properly barred from proceeding.

Big Sky Civil Trust argued that federal preclusion law should not apply, but the court rejected this argument. The appeals court confirmed that when a prior judgment comes from a federal court exercising federal-question jurisdiction, federal common law governs whether that judgment has preclusive effect on subsequent lawsuits. Applying this standard, the court found no error in the district court's dismissal.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether res judicata barred the plaintiff's claims based on a prior federal court judgment
Whether the plaintiff and the prior litigant shared sufficient privity to invoke preclusion
Whether federal or state preclusion law applied to a judgment from a federal court exercising federal-question jurisdiction

Procedural posture

Big Sky Civil Trust appealed the district court's dismissal of its complaint on res judicata grounds.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Big Sky Civil TR appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing its action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Big Sky Civil TRs action as barred by the doctrine of res judicata because David Steven Braun, who is in privity with Big Sky Civil TR, previously brought a federal action alleging nearly identical claims against the same defendant that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Mpoyo, 430 F.3d at 987-88 (elements of federal res judicata; claims are identical if they arise from the same transactional nucleus of facts); see also Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 894-95, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008) (discussing requirements for non-party preclusion). Contrary to Big Sky Civil TRs contention, the district court properly applied federal preclusion law because the prior judgment was rendered by a federal court exercising federal-question jurisdiction. See Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 922 F.3d 1014, 1021 n.6 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[If] the decision to be given preclusive effect was rendered by a federal court exercising federal-question jurisdiction, federal common law determines whether preclusion applies.”).

Big Sky Civil TRs motion for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 4) is denied.

AFFIRMED.