MEMORANDUM **
Esther L. Alley appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing her diversity action alleging breach of contract claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Alleys claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because Alley failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Rekhter v. State, Dept of Soc. & Health Servs., 180 Wash.2d 102, 323 P.3d 1036, 1041 (2014) (discussing the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Washington state law); Nw. Indep. Forest Mfrs. v. Dept of Lab. & Indus., 78 Wash.App. 707, 899 P.2d 6, 9 (1995) (“A breach of contract is actionable only if the contract imposes a duty, the duty is breached, and the breach proximately causes damage to the claimant.”).
The district court properly dismissed as barred by res judicata Alleys claim under Washingtons Deed of Trust Act because Alley had previously sued defendants in privity regarding the same causes of action and subject matter which resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Ensley v. Pitcher, 152 Wash.App. 891, 222 P.3d 99, 104 (2009) (setting forth the factors to determine whether a subsequent action is barred by res judicata under Washington state law).
Appellees’ motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 15) is granted.
AFFIRMED.