MEMORANDUM ***

Plaintiff-Appellant Masazumi Inoue (“Inoue”) claims that Defendants-Appel-lees lacked legal authority to foreclose on his property because of recording defects. Inoue raised substantially similar claims in a California state court action that was ultimately dismissed with final judgment entered against Inoue. The district court concluded that Inoue’s claims, having already been litigated in state court, were barred by res judicata and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. We have *819 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Under California law, res judicata applies if (1) the second lawsuit involves the same “cause of action” as the first, (2) the first lawsuit resulted in a final judgment on the merits, and (3) the party to be precluded was a party, or in privity with a party, to the first lawsuit. San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City Employees’ Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2009). Here, the three elements are clearly met.

Inoue does not argue on appeal that these elements are not met. Inoue appears to argue that res judicata does not apply because his claims in this action contain allegations that the defendants engaged in fraud related to the loan securitization process. There is no res judicata exception for such allegations of fraud. See Eichman v. Fotomat Corp., 147 Cal.App.3d 1170, 197 Cal.Rptr. 612, 614-15 (1983). An opposing party can escape res judicata only on the basis of extrinsic fraud, i.e„ fraud that “deprived the opposing party of the opportunity to appear and present his case” in the earlier judgment. Id. Inoue has neither argued nor provided any support for such extrinsic fraud.

We agree with the district court that Inoue’s suit is barred by res judicata.

AFFIRMED.