Pamela D. Lawson; Michael T. Meehan v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAMELA D. LAWSON; MICHAEL T.
MEEHAN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-55215
D.C. No. 8:19-cv-01402-DOC-JDE
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Pamela D. Lawson and Michael T. Meehan appeal pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims
arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Media Rights Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 922
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 17 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-55215
F.3d 1014, 1020 (9th Cir. 2019) (dismissal based on claim preclusion); Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6)). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record.
United States v. Corinthian Colls., 655 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ state law claims on the basis
of claim preclusion because plaintiffs raised, or could have raised, these claims in
their prior federal court action, which involved the same parties or their privies and
resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Media Rights Techs., Inc., 922 F.3d
at 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.”); Owens v. Kaiser Found.
Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth elements of
claim preclusion under federal law, and explaining that an “involuntary dismissal
generally acts as a judgment on the merits” for the purpose of claim preclusion
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
To the extent that plaintiffs’ state law claims were based on their contention
that following their prior federal court action, the lien expired and was not
enforceable at the time the foreclosure sale occurred, dismissal of these claims was
proper because the lien has not yet expired. See Cal. Civil Code § 882.020(a)(1)
(setting forth expiration date of lien); Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-55215
Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000)
(when determining whether a plaintiff states a claim for relief, the court “may
consider facts contained in documents attached to the complaint”).
Dismissal of plaintiffs’ Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”)
claim was proper because plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to state a
plausible claim for relief. See 12 C.F.R. § 1024.36 (setting forth requirements
applicable to a servicer regarding requests for information); see also 12 U.S.C.
§ 2605(f)(1) (limiting recovery to “actual damages” for servicer violations under
RESPA).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing plaintiffs’ first
amended complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been
futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th
Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that a district court may
dismiss without leave to amend when amendment would be futile).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
DB Residential, LLC and Equity Now Solutions, Inc.’s request for judicial
notice is denied as unnecessary.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --