United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019-07-25
Case and law context
Role: background; posture: Appeal from res judicata dismissal of §1981 suit after Missouri tort action on identical facts was dismissed with prejudice as a discovery sanction.; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f3d/931/0712-01 — United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 2019 | Formation performance termination or contractual benefits | not_reached Excluded from merits counts background / proceduralRestaurant purchase and racially charged removal are allegations underlying the later §1981 theory. The court decides claim preclusion only and never decides an impaired-contract element. | preclusion/same-incident-new-legal-theory | Brown's lawsuit stems from events that occurred at the Power and Light District in Kansas City, Missouri. After purchasing a few drinks at an outdoor bar, Brown sought to enter the bar's associated restaurant to use the bathroom. When he came out, three men told him he was trespassing and needed to leave. Brown alleges the men cursed at him, using racial slurs, and pushed Brown out of the restaurant. Brown then walked directly to two nearby police officers and stated he wanted to file a complaint. The officers detained Brown at a security guard office and eventually let him go, after giving him a ticket for trespassing.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0712-01; Unicode character offsets [166:793] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c59c3c91c80ae5470a000d7244dc23669eed20217af913659eccc3dcaadd603f.As the judgment was issued by a Missouri court, Missouri res judicata law applies. See Brown v. St. Louis Police Dept. , 691 F.2d 393, 395-96 (8th Cir. 1982) ; see also Laase, 638 F.3d at 856 ("[T]he law of the forum that rendered the first judgment controls the res judicata analysis."). Under Missouri law "res judicata applies where (1) 'the prior judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (2) the decision was the final judgment on the merits, and (3) the same cause of action and the same parties or their privies were involved in both cases.' " Bannum, Inc. v. City of St. Louis , 195 S.W.3d 541, 544 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006) (quoting Biermann v. United States , 67 F. Supp. 2d 1057, 1060 (E.D. Mo. 1999) ). Res judicata bars relitigation from the same "operative facts giving rise to one or more bases for suing" and applies "to every point properly belonging to the subject matter of litigation and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at that time." Chesterfield Village, Inc. v. City of Chesterfield , 64 S.W.3d 315, 318 (Mo. 2002) (en banc) (quoting King Gen. Contractors, Inc. v. Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints , 821 S.W.2d 495, 501 (Mo. 1991) (en banc)).Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0712-01; Unicode character offsets [2910:4157] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c59c3c91c80ae5470a000d7244dc23669eed20217af913659eccc3dcaadd603f.Brown has asserted the same cause of action against the same party in federal court that he did in the state court, which had jurisdiction and entered a final judgment. Therefore, this suit is barred by res judicata.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_931.jsonl#/f3d/931/0712-01; Unicode character offsets [6634:6850] (end exclusive); SHA-256 c59c3c91c80ae5470a000d7244dc23669eed20217af913659eccc3dcaadd603f. |