Brian Ross v. U.s. Bank Na, as Trustee for the LXS 2007-7N Trust Fund, a National Association

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN ROSS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
U.S. BANK NA, as Trustee for the LXS
2007-7N Trust Fund, a National
Association; BAC HOME LOANS
SERVICING, LP, a Texas Limited
Partnership; ALL PERSONS UNKNOWN
CLAIMING ANY LEGAL OR
EQUITABLE RIGHT, TITLE, ESTATE,
LIEN OR INTEREST IN THE
PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE
COMPLAINT ADVERSE TO
PLAINTIFF’S TITLE THERETO;
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-56291
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-02640-BEN-
JMA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 21, 2015
Pasadena, California
FILED
OCT 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 3 --

Before: RAWLINSON and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges and PONSOR,** Senior
District Judge.
Appellant Brian Ross (Ross) challenges the district court’s dismissal of his
federal complaint alleging that U.S. Bank improperly sought foreclosure of his
property.
The district court properly dismissed Ross’ federal complaint based on
collateral estoppel. Ross’ federal claims are merely the same challenge premised
on different legal theories to the foreclosure action that was conclusively resolved
in state court. See Mills v. U.S. Bank, 166 Cal.App.4th 871, 896 (2008)
(articulating that “a former judgment . . . is a collateral estoppel on issues which
were raised, even though some factual matters or legal arguments which could
have been presented were not”) (citations omitted) (emphasis in the original); see
also Evans v. Celotex Corp., 194 Cal.App.3d 741, 746-47 (1987) (stating that
“[c]ollateral estoppel bars relitigation of the same issues; it does not require
identity of legal theories or causes of action. If it did, there would be no end to
litigation for injuries arising out of the same facts, as long as a party could offer
another legal theory by which the same issue might be differently decided”)
(citation omitted).
** The Honorable Michael A. Ponsor, Senior District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
2

-- 2 of 3 --

Ross’ argument that collateral estoppel is inapplicable because U.S. Bank
was not a party to the state action is unavailing. See DKN Holdings LLC v.
Faerber, 352 P.3d 378, 387 (Cal. 2015) (recognizing that “[o]nly the party against
whom the doctrine is invoked must be bound by the prior proceeding. . . .”)
(citation omitted) (emphasis in the original).
AFFIRMED.
3

-- 3 of 3 --