Johnson v. Rock Solid Janitorial, Inc.
| Docket Number | 0144-23-1 |
| Decision Date | 08 November 2023 |
| Parties | VERONICA M. JOHNSON v. ROCK SOLID JANITORIAL, INC., ET AL. |
| Court | Virginia Court of Appeals |
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH Patricia L. West Judge Designate.
(Veronica M. Johnson, on briefs), pro se. Appellant submitting on briefs.
(Harold E. Johnson; John A. Irvin; Donald E. Morris; Williams Mullen; The Law Offices of Donald E. Morris, on brief), for appellees. Appellees submitting on brief.
Present: Judges Athey, Fulton and Causey
Veronica M. Johnson, pro se, appeals the circuit court's final order sustaining a plea in bar of res judicata filed by Selective Insurance Company of America (Selective America), Selective Way Insurance Company (Selective Way), and Selective Insurance Group (Selective Group) (collectively "Selective"). On appeal, she contends that res judicata does not bar her personal injury claims against Selective and Rock Solid Janitorial, Inc., that Selective's plea in bar is based upon a void order that should be reversed, and that the circuit court erred by not entering default judgment against Selective and Rock Solid for their alleged failure to respond to her discovery requests. The parties waived argument in this case. See Code § 17.1-403(ii). For the reasons stated below, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
On July 27, 2016, Johnson filed a warrant in debt in the City of Portsmouth General District Court against Rock Solid and Selective America. The warrant in debt, as amended, alleged that Johnson sustained personal injuries on June 30, 2015, when she slipped and fell on a floor waxed by Rock Solid inside the City of Portsmouth circuit courthouse. It further alleged that Selective Way paid Johnson a portion of a $15,000 medical expense benefit under Rock Solid's insurance policy but refused to pay Johnson the full amount of the benefit.[1] Johnson requested that the general district court award her the balance of the medical expense benefit and punitive damages for "[b]ad [f]aith [i]nsurance [p]ractices." She further indicated that she would file "a future claim . . . for [damages] based on liability."
The general district court denied Johnson's claims, and she appealed the ruling to the circuit court. Thereafter, Rock Solid and Selective America filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Johnson lacked standing to pursue her claims and had failed to join all necessary parties. After a hearing, the circuit court found that Johnson did not have standing to pursue her claims "because she [was] not a beneficiary under Rock Solid's insurance policy, [did] not have a contract with Rock Solid's insurance company, [t]here [was] no privity of contract, and [she] ha[d] suffered no loss or any out-of-pocket expenses." The circuit court also found that Selective Way and Selective Group were not parties to the case. On December 31, 2018, the circuit court entered a final order, dismissing Johnson's claims with prejudice (the "2018 order").[2] On November 16, 2020, Johnson filed a complaint in the circuit court against Rock Solid and Selective for negligently causing her June 30, 2015 injuries. The complaint alleged that Rock Solid negligently spilled wax on the floor and failed to warn Johnson of the floor's condition. The complaint further alleged that Rock Solid and Selective acted in bad faith by refusing to pay Johnson's medical expense benefits, which "contributed to the exacerbation of [her] injuries," and requested an award of "bad faith punitive damages."
Selective filed a plea in bar arguing that Johnson's claims were barred by res judicata because they arose from its refusal to pay her medical expense benefits and had been previously adjudicated by the 2018 order.[3] In her written opposition, Johnson argued that res judicata did not bar her claims because the 2018 order was procured by fraud, violated her Seventh and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and was void ab initio. She further argued that her current action was "for damages . . . caused by [Rock Solid's] negligence, and exacerbation of [her] injuries ensuing from [Selective's] bad faith," and not for medical expense benefits.[4] In addition to her opposition, Johnson also filed a motion for declaratory judgment requesting that the circuit court declare the 2018 order void, as well as a motion to compel responses to her discovery requests.
At the hearing on Johnson's motions and Selective's plea in bar, Johnson argued that the 2018 order was void because her former case had been set for trial and the judge who entered the 2018 order could not "overrule" the judge who scheduled the case for trial. She further argued that the 2018 order violated her Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury and her right to a trial de novo from the general district court. Johnson also asserted that the general district court committed fraud by revising one of its orders nunc pro tunc after she had appealed to the circuit court.[5] After considering the arguments of the parties, the circuit court ruled that the 2018 order was valid.
Following the circuit court's ruling that the 2018 order was valid, Johnson argued that her current claims were not barred by res judicata because she sought to recover personal injury damages that were "exacerbated" by Selective's failure to pay medical expense benefits, rather than medical expense benefits under Rock Solid's insurance policy. She asserted that the validity of the 2018 order had "nothing to do with [her] personal injury claim" and would not affect her claim against Rock Solid. Selective argued that Johnson's claims were barred by res judicata even if they constituted personal injury claims.[6]
After the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court issued a letter opinion finding that Johnson had previously "alleged negligence on the part of [Rock Solid]" and "sought damages from [Selective] for [its] refusal to pay her claim for medical benefits." The circuit court further found that Johnson's original claims were dismissed by the 2018 order on their merits and with prejudice and that Johnson's November 16, 2020 complaint "asserted the same claim of negligence." The circuit court ruled that both lawsuits "arose out of" Rock Solid and Selective's alleged "fail[ure] to pay her medical benefits claim" and that Johnson's current claims were barred by both claim preclusion and issue preclusion. On July 25, 2022, the circuit court entered a final order dismissing Johnson's complaint with prejudice.[7] Johnson appeals.
On appeal, Johnson asserts that the circuit court erred by sustaining Selective's plea in bar of res judicata against all defendants and by failing to enter default judgment sua sponte against all defendants for their failure to respond to her discovery requests. "[A]ll trial court rulings come to an appellate court with a presumption of correctness." Sobol v. Sobol, 74 Va.App. 252 272 (2022) (alteration in original) (quoting Wynnycky v. Kozel, 71 Va.App. 177, 192 (2019)).
"Whether a claim or issue is precluded by a prior judgment is a question of law this Court reviews de novo." Lane v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, 297 Va. 645, 653 (2019). Johnson asserts that the circuit court erred by sustaining Selective's plea in bar of res judicata with respect to all defendants. In support of her assertion, Johnson argues that the 2018 order was void ab initio or, alternatively, that this Court should reverse the order. She further argues that res judicata does not bar her claims because the 2018 order, if valid, was not a judgment on the merits.[8]
Johnson contends that the order should be reversed on its merits. She argues that the 2018 order "was clearly wrong in holding that [she] did not have standing to sue" because she was a third-party beneficiary of Rock Solid's insurance policy. Assuming, without deciding, that Johnson preserved her argument for appeal, her collateral attack on the merits of the 2018 order is impermissible.
"A collateral attack, in general, is an indirect challenge that seeks to avoid the effects of a prior judgment in a subsequent proceeding." Saunders v. Commonwealth, 62 Va.App. 793, 805 (2014) (quoting Sutherland v. Rasnake, 169 Va. 257, 266-67 (1937)). When the 21-day period to challenge a final order passes, a party can avoid the effect of a prior judgment by collateral attack on the judgment. Nelson v. Middlesex Dep't of Soc. Servs., 69 Va.App. 496, 509-10 (2018) (). "A 'collateral attack is allowed only where the judgment is void, a void judgment being a judgment rendered without jurisdiction.'" Saunders, 62 Va.App. at 805 (quoting Fraser v. Commonwealth, 16 Va.App. 775, 777 (1993)).
Here, 21 days have passed since the 2018 order was entered, so to avoid the order's effect, Johnson must collaterally attack the order. We address this attack in the next section.
In her collateral attack of the 2018 order, Johnson contends that the order is void ab initio because it was entered in violation of her constitutional right to due process. Her amended opening brief, however, does not offer any legal authority or argument in support of her conclusion.
"Rule 5A:20(e) requires that the appellant's opening brief include 'principles of law and authorities' supporting each assignment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial