Opinion
No. 18-15030
08-22-2018
BENJAMIN ALLEN; RACHEL FLOWER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WILMINGTON TRUST, N.A., As Trustee on behalf of ARLP Securitization Trust, Series 2014-2; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:17-cv-00154-LRH-WGC MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Benjamin Allen and Rachel Flower appeal from the district court's order dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. San Remo Hotel L.P. v. San Francisco City & County, 364 F.3d 1088, 1094 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal on the basis of issue preclusion); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 679 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' action as barred by the doctrine of issue preclusion because all the requirements for the application of the doctrine were met. See Ross v. Alaska, 189 F.3d 1107, 1110 (9th Cir. 1999) (federal courts apply state law to determine issue preclusion); Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 194 P.3d 709, 713 (Nev. 2008) (elements of issue preclusion under Nevada law). Contrary to plaintiffs' contention, the issues raised in their prior state court proceedings and this action are identical, and were necessarily and actually litigated because the state court addressed both defendants' authority to foreclose and plaintiffs' standing to challenge that authority. See Wood v. Germann, 331 P.3d 859, 860 n.3 (Nev. 2014) (per curiam) (explaining that certain challenges to the veracity of a lender's loan documents fall within the scope of Nevada's foreclosure mediation program's judicial review process since those challenges implicate the lender's authority to foreclose).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by taking judicial notice of certain public records without a formal hearing because plaintiffs had an opportunity to be heard on the issue of judicial notice by filing objections to the request for judicial notice and an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(e); Lee, 250 F.3d at 689-90 (setting forth standard review, and explaining the circumstances in which the district court may take judicial notice of matters of public record in ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim).
AFFIRMED.