931 F.3d 712
8th Cir.2019Background
- Arthur Brown was allegedly shoved out of a Kansas City restaurant after using the restroom; he was given a trespass citation after interacting with police.
- Brown sued K.C. Live and associated entities in Missouri state court for assault, battery, false imprisonment, negligence, and malicious prosecution.
- Brown’s state-court case was dismissed with prejudice after his attorney repeatedly failed to comply with discovery and court orders; a motion to reconsider was denied.
- Brown then filed a federal suit asserting the same factual allegations but invoking 42 U.S.C. § 1981 instead of state tort claims.
- The district court dismissed the federal suit as barred by res judicata; Brown appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding Missouri claim-preclusion law bars relitigation where the same operative facts and parties were involved and the prior dismissal with prejudice was a final judgment on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown’s § 1981 suit is barred by res judicata given the state-court dismissal with prejudice | Brown: § 1981 is a different cause of action with different elements, so it is not precluded | K.C. Live: The federal claim arises from the same operative facts and parties; claim preclusion applies despite different legal theory | Held: Preclusion applies; the § 1981 claim is barred because it relies on the same factual bases and involves the same parties and a final state-court judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Schwartz v. Bogen, 913 F.3d 777 (8th Cir. 2019) (standard of review for res judicata dismissal)
- Laase v. County of Isanti, 638 F.3d 853 (8th Cir. 2011) (forum-law rule for preclusion analysis)
- Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1981) (definition of claim preclusion)
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (U.S. 1980) (federal courts must give state judgments preclusive effect)
- Brown v. St. Louis Police Dept., 692 F.2d 393 (8th Cir. 1982) (applying law of the forum that rendered the first judgment)
- Bannum, Inc. v. City of St. Louis, 195 S.W.3d 541 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006) (elements of Missouri res judicata)
- Chesterfield Village, Inc. v. City of Chesterfield, 64 S.W.3d 315 (Mo. 2002) (look to factual bases, not legal theories, for claim preclusion)
- King General Contractors, Inc. v. Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, 821 S.W.2d 495 (Mo. 1991) (separate legal theories are not separate claims)
- Greasel Conversion, Inc. v. Massa, 399 S.W.3d 456 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013) (dismissal with prejudice is a judgment on the merits)
- Kesterson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 242 S.W.3d 712 (Mo. 2008) (new cause of action requires new ultimate facts)