State Ex Rel. City of Blue Springs v. the Honorable Robert M. Schieber

• Decision Date: 21 June 2011
• Docket Number: No. WD 73774.,WD 73774.
• Citation: 343 S.W.3d 686
• Parties: STATE of Missouri ex rel. CITY OF BLUE SPRINGS, MISSOURI, Relator,v.The Honorable Robert M. SCHIEBER, Circuit Court Judge, Respondent.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

343 S.W.3d 686

STATE of Missouri ex rel. CITY OF BLUE SPRINGS, MISSOURI, Relator,
v.
The Honorable Robert M. SCHIEBER, Circuit Court Judge, Respondent.

No. WD 73774.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 21, 2011.

[343 S.W.3d 687]

Brandon D. Mizner, Kansas City, MO, for Relator and Defendant in the Underlying Action, City of Blue Springs, Missouri.Margaret D. Lineberry, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiffs in the Underlying Action, Shawn Stevens and Jennifer Stevens.David R. Buchanan, Kansas City, MO, for Defendants in the Underlying Action, MarKirk Construction, Inc., and Kirk Jones.Joseph S. Gall, Independence, MO, for Defendant in the Underlying Action, Damar Development, Inc.Before Writ Division: KAREN KING MITCHELL, Presiding Judge, and THOMAS H. NEWTON and MARK D. PFEIFFER, Judges.KAREN KING MITCHELL, Presiding Judge.

This is a res judicata case. The plaintiffs had previously sued the defendant and other co-defendants. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, but the plaintiffs' claims against the co-defendants remained. The plaintiffs then dismissed their claims against the remaining co-defendants without prejudice and refiled the same claims against most of the defendants, including the defendant in whose favor summary judgment had been granted. The primary issue is whether there was a final judgment on the merits with respect to the defendant for whom summary judgment had been granted. We hold that there was. Accordingly, we issue and make absolute the writ of mandamus, mandating that the Respondent grant the Relator's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Facts and Procedural Background

Shawn Stevens and Jennifer Stevens filed a lawsuit against the Relator, the City of Blue Springs (“Blue Springs”), alleging negligence and inverse condemnation. The Stevenses alleged that Blue Springs was liable to them because it approved and

[343 S.W.3d 688]

accepted dedication of a grading plan, a drainage plan, and an infrastructure improvement plan (“plans”) that affected their property and the surrounding areas. They alleged that the plans failed to provide adequate drainage. The Stevenses also sued various other persons (“other defendants”), alleging that they were liable for the property damage caused by the allegedly deficient drainage.

Blue Springs filed a motion for summary judgment, but the circuit court denied it. Blue Springs petitioned the Supreme Court of Missouri for a writ of prohibition. The Supreme Court issued and made absolute the writ, prohibiting the circuit court from taking action in the case as against Blue Springs, apart from granting summary judgment. State ex rel. City of Blue Springs v. Nixon, 250 S.W.3d 365, 373 (Mo. banc 2008).

The circuit court then granted summary judgment in Blue Springs's favor (“the summary judgment”). The summary judgment did not contain any language respecting “dismissal with prejudice” or “dismissal without prejudice.” The Stevenses dismissed their claims against the other defendants without prejudice.

The Stevenses filed this case against Blue Springs and some of the other defendants. Again, the Stevenses assert inverse condemnation against Blue Springs, arguing that Blue Springs is liable to them for the damage caused by the allegedly improper drainage. The Stevenses again allege that Blue Springs was negligent in approving and accepting dedication of the plans.

Blue Springs moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing, among other things, that, as against it, the Stevenses' claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata because of the previous grant of summary judgment. In response to the motion, the Stevenses argued that there was no final judgment on the merits in the first case. In addition, they argued that the summary judgment was a “summary judgment of dismissal without prejudice” in that the judgment did not indicate that it was a dismissal with prejudice. They also argued that they had changed their theory in the newly filed case: in the first action, their position was that Blue Springs was negligent in approving the plans, whereas in the second action, their position was that Blue Springs was negligent in not noticing that the developer had failed to follow the plans. The circuit court, the Honorable Robert M. Schieber presiding, denied Blue Springs's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Blue Springs filed a petition for a writ for prohibition, or, alternatively, for a writ of mandamus, asking that we mandate that Judge Schieber grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings. We asked for suggestions in opposition, but we have received none.¹ We now issue the writ of mandamus and make it absolute.

Standard of Review

When...