Case Explained: THOMPSON V. U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-10 Docket: 2:23-cv-00080-BMM The ninth-circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Peter Thompson’s complaint against U.S. Bank National Association and other defendants, as well as the denial of his motions for leave to amend, extensions of time, and recusal. The court held that Claims One through Three were barred by res judicata under Montana law because the parties in the current action were identical or in privity with those in a prior federal appeal (Thompson v. Sullivan), the subject matter involved the same property and loan, and a final judgment had already been entered in the prior action. Regarding Claim Four, the court found the complaint failed to plausibly allege how MERS’s breach of an oral agreement violated the Montana Consumer Protection Act, the UCC, or the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Claim Five was properly dismissed because Thompson did not adequately allege that the defendants acted with conscious disregard of risk regarding property valuation or engaged in a conspiracy, noting that Auction.com had removed the disputed listing upon notification. Claim Six was dismissed as moot because the defendant had already provided the requested reinstatement or payoff information. Finally, the appellate court determined the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend due to Thompson’s undue delay and dilatory tactics, denying an extension of time for lack of good cause, and rejecting his unsupported allegations of judicial bias. The practical consequence is that the dismissal stands, the case is closed, and no further amendments or proceedings are permitted on these claims. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.