
    Masazumi INOUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.; The Bank of New York Mellon, FKA The Bank of New York as Trustee for the Alternative Loan Trust 2005-17; Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2005-17, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-16699
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 19, 2017  San Francisco, California
    Filed June 21, 2017
    Mark W. Lapham, Esquire, Attorney, Law Offices of Mark W. Lapham, Danville, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Elizabeth Holt Andrews,. Esquire, Jan T. Chilton, Attorney, Severson & Werson APC, One Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Bank of America, N.A., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., The Bank of New York Mellon
    Elizabeth Holt Andrews, Esquire, Sev-erson & Werson APC, One Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Mortgage Pass-through Certificates
    Before: SCHROEDER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and McCALLA, District Judge.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision, without oral argument. See Fed, R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Jon P. McCalla, United States District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.
    
   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 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. 
      
       disposition ⅛ not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     