In re: DOUGLAS GILLIES v. Jpmorgan Chase Bank, N.a.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re: DOUGLAS GILLIES,
Debtor.
______________________________
DOUGLAS GILLIES,
Appellant,
v.
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
Appellee.
No. 16-56908
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-07590-FMO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2017**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Douglas Gillies appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his adversary proceeding alleging pre-foreclosure related claims. We have
* 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 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-56908
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis
of res judicata. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gillies’s action as barred by the
doctrine of res judicata because Gillies either raised, or could have raised, his
claims in his prior California state and federal court actions, which involved the
same primary rights, and the same parties, and resulted in final judgments on the
merits. See Gillies v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 213 Cal. Rptr. 3d 210, 216
(2017) (explaining that “[r]es judicata precludes piecemeal litigation by splitting a
single cause of action or relitigation of the same cause of action on a different legal
theory or for different relief” (citation omitted)).
Gillies’s motion to take judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 20) is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --