Clark v. Mediation Case Manager, LLC

── Clark v. Mediation Case Manager, LLC ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 28, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICHARD WARREN CLARK, No. 24-5127 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 6:24-cv-00541-MC v. MEMORANDUM* MEDIATION CASE MANAGER, LLC; ANNETTE PHELPS; CHRISTOPHER BURKE; U.S. BANK TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Trustee of the LSF9 Master Participation Trust; FAY SERVICING, LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael J. McShane, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 26, 2026** Before: RAWLINSON, H.A. THOMAS, and MENDOZA, Circuit Judges. Richard Clark appeals the district court’s order (1) granting U.S. Bank Trust * 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). National Association’s (“U.S. Bank”) and Fay Servicing, LLC’s (“Fay”) motion to dismiss Clark’s breach of contract claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6) on the basis of claim preclusion; (2) granting Mediation Case Manager, LLC, Annette Phelps, and Christopher Burk’s (collectively, the “MCM defendants”) motion for entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 54(b); and (3) denying Clark’s motion to reconsider the state court’s pre- removal order dismissing the declaratory judgment claim against the MCM defendants on the basis of claim preclusion. Clark also appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) requiring U.S. Bank and Fay to produce certain documents. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm. We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 15 F.4th 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2021), including dismissal based on claim preclusion, Wojciechowski v. Kohlberg Ventures, LLC, 923 F.3d 685, 689 (9th Cir. 2019). We review a motion to reconsider—whether construed as a motion to alter or amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b)—for abuse of discretion. School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We review the district court’s entry of final judgment under Rule 54(b) for abuse of discretion. 2 24-5127 Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd., 905 F.3d 565, 576 (9th Cir. 2018). We also review the district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief for abuse of discretion. Babaria v. Blinken, 87 F.4th 963, 976 (9th Cir. 2023). 1. The district court did not err in dismissing Clark’s claims based on claim preclusion. Clark’s breach of contract claim against U.S. Bank and Fay and his declaratory judgment claim against the MCM defendants arise “out of the same transactional nucleus of facts” as prior federal actions, Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708, 714 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Frank v. United Airlines, Inc., 216 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir. 2000)), and “could have been raised in the prior action[s],” Gila River Indian Cmty. v. Schoubroek, 145 F.4th 1058, 1078 (9th Cir. 2025) (quoting Owens, 244 F.3d at 713). Clark has unsuccessfully challenged his