Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10797044
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Van Damme v. U.S. Bank National Association
No. 10797044 · Decided February 20, 2026
No. 10797044·Ninth Circuit · 2026·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
February 20, 2026
Citation
No. 10797044
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2026
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARMIN VAN DAMME, No. 24-7767
D.C. No. 2:24-cv-01287-JAD-BNW
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MEMORANDUM*
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as Trustee,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2026**
Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Armin Van Damme appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his diversity action alleging various claims in connection with real
property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
*
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).
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis of claim
preclusion. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Van Damme’s quiet title claims
because Van Damme raised, or could have raised, his claims in a prior federal
action, which involved the same party and resulted in a final judgment on the
merits. See Daewoo Elecs. Am. Inc. v. Opta Corp., 875 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.
2017) (explaining that when a federal court with diversity jurisdiction assesses the
preclusive effect of a prior federal court sitting in diversity, “the second court must
apply preclusion principles according to the law of the initial court’s state”); Five
Star Cap. Corp. v. Ruby, 194 P.3d 709, 713 (Nev. 2008) (setting forth the elements
of claim preclusion under Nevada law).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 24-7767
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2026 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2026 MOLLY C.
02BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, Defendant - Appellee.
03Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2026** Before: CALLAHAN, FRIEDLAND, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
04Armin Van Damme appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his diversity action alleging various claims in connection with real property.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2026 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Van Damme v. U.S. Bank National Association in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on February 20, 2026.
Use the citation No. 10797044 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.