Boone Central Title Company v. Dittmer Properties, L.P., 2:12-cv-04137

Interpleader action involving Boone-Central Title Company and CADC/RADC over escrowed funds from a Barkley Center General Partnership loan.
The Dittmer Defendants previously pursued the same claims in two other cases, which were dismissed, and later appeals are pending.
CADC argues res judicata bars the Dittmer claims and seeks dismissal; the Dittmer Defendants seek a stay pending appellate resolution.
Landmark Bank asserts its interest is derivative of the Dittmer claims and thus could be dismissed if those claims fail.
The court granted CADC’s motions to dismiss both the Dittmer Defendants and Landmark Bank, and denied the Dittmer Defendants’ motion for a stay, finding res judicata applicable and no stay due to lack of supersedeas bond.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the Dittmer claims barred by res judicata?	Dittmer defenses	CADC—claims identical to earlier actions; pending appeals do not bar res judicata	Yes, dismissals granted for res judicata.
Are Landmark Bank's claims derivative and dismissible?	Landmark stakes derivative interest via security agreement	Landmark's claims are derivative of Dittmer claims	Yes, dismissals granted.
Should the stay of proceedings be granted pending appeal?	Stay to await appellate decision	No stay absent supersedeas bond; pendency does not suspend finality	No stay granted.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (standard for pleading plausibility in 12(b)(6))
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading must raise plausible entitlement to relief)
In re Ewing, 852 F.2d 1057 (8th Cir. 1988) (pendency of appeal does not diminish res judicata effect)