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 district court's judgment dismissing the action as barred by res judicata was affirmed.

Big Sky Civil Trust appealed a district court's dismissal of its lawsuit against Bank of America. The lower court had dismissed the case under the doctrine of res judicata, which prevents the same claim from being litigated twice. The appellate court upheld this dismissal because David Steven Braun, who stands in a legal relationship with Big Sky Civil Trust, had previously filed a nearly identical federal lawsuit against the same bank that resulted in a final judgment. Since the prior case involved the same core facts and the same defendant, Big Sky Civil Trust was barred from relitigating those claims.

Big Sky Civil Trust argued that the district court should not have applied federal preclusion law, but the court rejected this argument. The appellate court confirmed that when a prior judgment comes from a federal court deciding a federal question, federal common law governs whether that judgment blocks future litigation on the same subject.

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 action based on a prior federal court judgment
Whether privity existed between the current plaintiff and the party to the prior litigation
Whether federal or state preclusion law applied to a judgment from federal court

Procedural posture

Big Sky Civil Trust appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing its federal and state law claims against Bank of America 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.