Augustine v. Adams
| Citation | 88 F.Supp.2d 1166 |
| Decision Date | 04 February 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. Civ.A. 98-2422-GTV.,Civ.A. 98-2422-GTV. |
| Parties | Elma AUGUSTINE, Plaintiff, v. James ADAMS, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Caleb Boone, Hays, KS, for plaintiff.
Richard T. Foster, McDonald, Tinker, Skaer, Quinn & Herrington, Whichita, KS, for defendants.
Michael S. Holland, Holland & Holland, Russell, KS, for Charles Haynes, defendant.
Clarence L. King, Jr., Brian Wilson Wood, Hampton & Royce, L.C., Salina, KS, for John Bird, defendant.
This professional malpractice action is before the court on a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 6) and a motion for sanctions (Doc. 8) filed by defendants John Bird, Robert Glassman, and Glassman, Bird & Braun (collectively the "Attorneys"), and a motion for summary judgment (Doc. 9) filed by defendants James Adams and Adams, Brown, Beran & Ball, P.A. (collectively the "Accountants"). For the reasons set forth below, the motions are granted.
The following facts are taken from the summary judgment record and are either uncontroverted or viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff's case. Immaterial facts and facts not properly supported by the record are omitted.
Plaintiff filed suit in this court alleging professional malpractice against the Attorneys, the Accountants, and Charles Haynes on October 27, 1995. After completion of discovery, the Attorneys and the Accountants moved for summary judgment on all claims against them. The court issued an Order on May 2, 1997, granting both motions. See Augustine v. Adams, No. 95-2489-GTV, 1997 WL 298451 .
In an apparent attempt to gain immediate appeal rights from this court's order granting summary judgment, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her claims against Charles Haynes without prejudice. She then filed an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
The Tenth Circuit informed plaintiff that the May 2, 1997 order was not ripe for review, because an order dismissing some, but not all, of the defendants is not a final order for purposes of appeal. The Tenth Circuit allowed plaintiff fifteen days to obtain either a final judgment or a Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b) certification from this court. Plaintiff requested appropriate certification; this court denied that request.
The Tenth Circuit dismissed plaintiff's appeal on July 22, 1998. Citing Cook v. Rocky Mountain Bank Note Co., 974 F.2d 147, 148 (10th Cir.1992), the Tenth Circuit explained that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because this court had not adjudicated all of the claims against all of the parties as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b). Specifically, the Tenth Circuit explained that under Cook, a plaintiff may not voluntarily dismiss the claims against one defendant without prejudice as an avenue to gain appeal rights to an order dismissing claims against other defendants with prejudice.
On September 18, 1998, plaintiff filed the present action, asserting the same claims against the same parties as asserted in the previous 1995 action.1
The Attorneys contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff's claims against them are (1) barred by the doctrine of res judicata, (2) barred by the Kansas one-action rule, and (3) barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Attorneys further argue that "equity warrants the use of [this court's] inherent power to control its docket and dismiss this case with prejudice." The Accountants contend that they are entitled to summary judgment because plaintiff's claims against them are (1) barred by the doctrine of res judicata, (2) barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, and (3) barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
To the extent that the Attorneys' and the Accountants' arguments coincide, they will be discussed together.
Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence presented by the parties demonstrates "that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). A "genuine" issue of fact exists if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could resolve the issue either way. Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 670 (10th Cir. 1998) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). An issue of fact is "material" if it is essential to the proper disposition of the claim. See id. (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505). The court must consider the record, and all reasonable inferences therefrom, in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. See id.
The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See id. at 670-71 (citing Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986)). If the moving party will not bear the burden of persuasion at trial, that party "may make its prima facie demonstration simply by pointing out to the court a lack of evidence for the nonmovant on an essential element of the nonmovant's claim." Id. at 671 (citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325, 106 S.Ct. 2548). Once the moving party has properly supported its motion for summary judgment, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to go beyond the pleadings and set forth specific facts from which a reasonable jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party. See id.
The Attorneys argue that plaintiff's claims against them are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, and the Accountants argue that plaintiff's claims against them are barred by both res judicata and collateral estoppel. The court concludes that both res judicata and collateral estoppel serve to bar plaintiff's claims.
Although the two doctrines operate in slightly different manners, both res judicata and collateral estoppel function on the premise that the finality of earlier judgments must be advanced and adhered to by subsequent courts. See 18 James Wm. Moore, Moore's Federal Practice § 131.13[1] (3d ed.1999). Under res judicata, commonly referred to as claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating any claims that were or could have been raised in that action. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980). Under collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, a court's decision on an issue of fact or law that is necessary to its judgment precludes relitigation of the same issue in a different cause of action between the same parties. See Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147, 153, 99 S.Ct. 970, 59 L.Ed.2d 210 (1979). In both cases, invocation of res judicata and collateral estoppel "relieve[s] parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve[s] judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage[s] reliance on adjudication." Allen, 449 U.S. at 94, 101 S.Ct. 411.
A preliminary question is whether state or federal law governs the res judicata and collateral estoppel issues presented in this diversity case. Although the Tenth Circuit has not definitively answered this question, it has indicated in dicta that it would probably "`apply federal preclusion law except where the matter is distinctly substantive.'" Frandsen v. Westinghouse Corp., 46 F.3d 975, 977 (10th Cir.1995) (quoting American Motorists Ins. Co. v. General Host Corp., 946 F.2d 1482 (10th Cir.1991)). The District of Kansas has subsequently determined that federal law governs the issue of collateral estoppel in successive diversity actions, see Scheufler v. General Host Corp., 881 F.Supp. 492, 495 (D.Kan.1995), and that federal law would likely govern the issue of res judicata as well, see Augustine v. Adams, 169 F.R.D. 664, 668 (D.Kan.1996). This court will apply federal law.2
For the doctrine of res judicata to apply, the following three conditions must be satisfied: (1) a final judgment on the merits must have been made in the prior action; (2) the parties must be identical or in privity; and (3) the suit must be based on the same cause of action. See Yapp v. Excel Corp., 186 F.3d 1222, 1226 (10th Cir.1999) (citing King v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 117 F.3d 443, 445 (10th Cir. 1997)). It is uncontested that the parties in this action are identical to those in the prior action and that the present lawsuit is based on the same causes of action as the previous one. The only issue is whether this court's May 2, 1997 order granting summary judgment in favor of the Attorneys and the Accountants constitutes a "final judgment on the merits."
Plaintiff contends that res judicata finality is "inextricably intertwined" with the appealability of a judgment. She argues that the May 2, 1997 order in the 1995 action cannot be considered final because it was not appealable. Plaintiff, however, either misstates or misinterprets the relationship between appealability and finality for res judicata purposes. First and foremost, this court has specifically held that summary judgment is a final judgment on the merits for purposes of res judicata. See Solien v. Physicians Bus. Network, Inc., 22 F.Supp.2d 1237, 1238 (D.Kan.1998); Anglemyer v. Hamilton County Hosp., 941 F.Supp. 976, 979 (D.Kan.1996). Second, the absence of a right to appeal a final judgment on the merits does not necessarily change the preclusive effect of that judgment on a second suit. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 38-39, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950); see also Sherman v. Jacobson, 247 F.Supp. 261, 268 (S.D.N.Y.1965) (). "[W]hen res judicata is in question a judgment will ordinarily...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seaboard Corp. v. Marsh Inc.
...under the statute is based on a dismissal at the trial court level, not the termination of an appeal. In that case, Augustine v. Adams, 88 F.Supp.2d 1166 (D.Kan.2000), a federal district court granted summary judgment to some but not all defendants. The plaintiff then voluntarily dismissed ......
-
Beams v. Norton, 03-4072-JAR.
...v. Norton, 256 F.Supp.2d 1203, 1215-16 (D.Kan.2003) and plaintiff is estopped from relitigating this matter. See Augustine v. Adams, 88 F.Supp.2d 1166, 1170 (D.Kan.2000) (discussing issue and claim preclusion). 53. Mattioda v. White, 323 F.3d 1288, 1293 (10th Cir.2003). 54. Annett v. Univ. ......
-
Sinfuego v. Curry Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
...argues that the earlier ruling of summary judgment for Pyle is an adjudication on the merits and cites Augustine v. Adams, 88 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1172 (D. Kan. 2000)(VanBebber, J.) as support for its position. See Memo. Brief at 10. In that matter, the defendant parties moved for summary judg......
-
Wells v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., Case No. 11-1271-CM
...both rest on the principle that final earlier judgments must be advanced and adhered to by subsequent courts. Augustine v. Adams, 88 F. Supp. 2d 1166, 1170 (D. Kan. 2000). Under res judicata, commonly referred to as claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits precludes the parties or t......