
    IN RE: Douglas GILLIES, Debtor. Douglas Gillies, Appellant, v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Appellee.
    No. 16-56908
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted November 15, 2017 
    
    Filed November 30, 2017
    Douglas Gillies, Pro Se
    Richard C. Ochoa, Esquire, Counsel, Alfred Shaumyan, Bryan Cave LLP, Santa Monica, CA, for Appellee
    Before: CANBY, TROTT, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2),
    
   MEMORANDUM

Douglas Gillies appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his adversary proceeding alleging pre-foreclo-sure related claims. We have 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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     