Clark v. Bank, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed Plaintiff Clark’s First Amended Complaint without prejudice after reviewing it under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The court concluded that many claims concerning a 2008 loan and 2019 foreclosure appeared barred by res judicata and that the remaining claims appeared untimely. The action involved allegations against Flagstar Bank, ZBS Law, and Yi Ming, LLC, including claims for wrongful foreclosure, breach of contract, Truth in Lending Act violations, and related California-law claims.

Holdings

1. The prior federal action had preclusive effect, at least as to Flagstar, because Plaintiff's current claims involved the same alleged violations of Plaintiff's rights and Flagstar's duties and the same resulting harm as claims previously litigated or dismissed.
2. The First Amended Complaint failed to state a timely claim because the claims concerned a 2008 loan and a foreclosure completed in 2019, while Plaintiff did not file this action until February 2025, and Plaintiff did not adequately establish delayed discovery.
3. The action could not proceed because the First Amended Complaint failed to state a claim under the in forma pauperis screening standard.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the First Amended Complaint stated a claim sufficient to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
2. Whether claims based on Plaintiff's 2008 loan and related foreclosure were barred by res judicata based on Plaintiff's prior federal and state proceedings.
3. Whether Plaintiff's claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and whether the alleged 2022 tax-assessor note supported delayed discovery.

Disposition

dismissed