Ernest Clark Hicks v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a foreign (non-Washington incorporated) banking institution;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERNEST CLARK HICKS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a foreign
(non-Washington incorporated) banking
institution; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP OF
WASHINGTON, a Washington corporation;
DOES, 1-10,
Defendants.
No. 20-36029
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00158-SAB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington
Stanley A. Bastian, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
* 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
DEC 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-36029
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Ernest Clark Hicks appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
action alleging various federal and state law claims regarding a home loan. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) based on claim preclusion. Mpoyo v.
Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hicks’s action on the basis of claim
preclusion because his claims were raised or could have been raised in previous
actions between the parties that resulted in final adjudications on the merits. See
id. at 987-88 (elements of federal claim preclusion); Ensley v. Pitcher, 222 P.3d
99, 104 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (elements of claim preclusion under Washington
law).
We reject as meritless Hicks’s contention that prior settlement agreements
reserved the right to litigate the claims at issue in this action.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --