ESTHER L. ALLEY, AKA Esther Jones- Alley v. MTGLQ INVESTORS, LP; SELENE FINANCE, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ESTHER L. ALLEY, AKA Esther Jones-
Alley,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MTGLQ INVESTORS, LP; SELENE
FINANCE, LP, a Delaware Limited
Partnership,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-35076
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00708-JCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Esther L. Alley appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
her diversity action alleging breach of contract claims arising from foreclosure
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
* 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
MAY 25 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-35076
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th
Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Alley’s claims for breach of contract
and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because Alley
failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed,
a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Rekhter v.
State, Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 323 P.3d 1036, 1041 (Wash. 2014)
(discussing the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing under Washington
state law); Nw. Indep. Forest Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 899 P.2d 6, 9 (Wash.
Ct. App. 1995) (“A breach of contract is actionable only if the contract imposes a
duty, the duty is breached, and the breach proximately causes damage to the
claimant.”).
The district court properly dismissed as barred by res judicata Alley’s claim
under Washington’s Deed of Trust Act because Alley had previously sued
defendants in privity regarding the same causes of action and subject matter which
resulted in a final judgment on the merits. See Ensley v. Pitcher, 222 P.3d 99, 104
(Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (setting forth the factors to determine whether a subsequent
action is barred by res judicata under Washington state law).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-35076
Appellees’ motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 15) is granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --