Bugg v. Rutter
2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1693
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Bugg appeals a dismissal in a Missouri circuit court claiming res judicata bars his state-law claims because a prior federal judgment disposed of those claims.
- In Downs I–III, Rutter as conservator and later as estate administrator pursued judgments against Bugg for a promissory note; Bugg appealed and the appellate rulings affirmed.
- During Downs III, Bugg filed a federal action asserting federal and state-law claims arising from Rutter and Goldstein's actions; the district court dismissed these claims for failure to state a claim and with prejudice.
- Bugg then filed a state-court petition alleging abuse of process, breach of fiduciary duty, interference with inheritance, negligence, and conspiracy, seeking a declaratory judgment; the circuit court dismissed based on res judicata/collateral estoppel.
- The issue on appeal is whether the federal judgment precludes Bugg’s state-law claims in Missouri court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the federal district court have jurisdiction over Bugg’s state-law claims via supplemental jurisdiction? | District court lacked jurisdiction to dispose of state claims. | District court had supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 over the state claims as part of the same case or controversy. | Yes; the district court had supplemental jurisdiction and disposed of the state claims. |
| Are Bugg’s state-law and federal claims the same for purposes of res judicata? | The state-law claims are distinct from the federal claims. | The claims share the same core misconduct by Rutter and Goldstein and thus are the same under Canady. | They are the same causes of action for res judicata purposes. |
| Were the parties identical in the two actions for res judicata to apply? | Different parties or different capacity could break privity. | The parties were the same (Rutter and Goldstein) in both actions. | Yes; parties were the same. |
| Was the federal judgment a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes? | Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) was not on the merits. | The district court ruled on the merits, dismissing all claims as without merit. | Yes; the federal judgment was on the merits and final, with prejudice. |
| Did Bugg have a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claims in federal court? | Bugg lacked opportunity to challenge the dismissal. | Bugg had a full and fair opportunity to brief and argue the motion to dismiss. | Yes; Bugg had a full and fair opportunity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ripplin Shoals Land Co., LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 440 F.3d 1038 (8th Cir. 2006) (elements of res judicata; final judgment on the merits where applicable)
- Styskal v. Weld Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 365 F.3d 855 (10th Cir. 2004) (merits-based dismissal post-Semtek governs preclusion analysis)
- Semtek Int'l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (2001) (regarding 'on the merits' and prejudice in dismissal for purposes of res judicata)
- Moitie, Federated Dep't Stores v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (1981) (dismissal on Rule 41(b) deemed on the merits unless stated otherwise)
- Brown v. Simmons, 270 S.W.3d 508 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) (application of federal res judicata law to determine preclusion)
- Andes v. Paden, Welch, Martin & Albano, P.C., 897 S.W.2d 19 (Mo. App. W.D. 1995) (principles governing res judicata and final judgments)
- Price v. Wolford, 608 F.3d 698 (10th Cir. 2010) (definition of same nucleus of operative fact for supplemental jurisdiction)