FlawCheck Citator
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ARMIN VAN DAMME, No. 24-7767 D.C. No.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
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.
Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Why Attorneys Choose FlawFinder

Side-by-side with Westlaw and LexisNexis

Feature FlawFinder Westlaw LexisNexis
Monthly price$19 – $99$133 – $646$153 – $399
ContractNone1–3 year min1–6 year min
Hidden fees$0, alwaysUp to $469/search$25/mo + per-doc
FlawCheck citatorIncludedKeyCite ($$$)Shepard's ($$$)
Plain-English summaryIncludedNoNo
CancelOne clickTermination feesAccount friction
Related Cases

Full legal research for $19/month

All 50 states · Federal regulations · Case law · Police SOPs · AI analysis included · No contract

Continue Researching →