FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 17 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JEAN MARIE BARTON; BYRON LEE No. 18-35798 BARTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-01100-RAJ Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORP OF WASHINGTON; TRIANGLE PROPERTY OF WASHINGTON, Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 8, 2020** Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Jean Marie Barton and Byron Lee Barton appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims

* 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). arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal based on claim preclusion); Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (sua sponte dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)).

We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the Bartons’ action on the basis of res judicata because the Bartons’ claims were raised or could have been raised in previous actions between the parties that resulted in final adjudications on the merits. See San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2009) (federal court must follow state’s preclusion rules to determine effect of a state court judgment); Ofuasia v. Smurr, 392 P.3d 1148, 1154 (2017) (elements of res judicata under Washington law).

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 18-35798