Carlos David Romero v. Ivanfox Llc
75875-6
Wash. Ct. App. USep 18, 2017Background
- Romero defaulted on his mortgage; EverBank hired LPS to inspect, secure, and preserve the foreclosed property.
- Ivanfox (Ivan Fox LLC) — a subcontractor for LPS — changed the locks and photographed the interior on September 17, 2013.
- Romero sued LPS, EverBank, and others in King County, naming "Doe Defendants 1–20" for unidentified actors who allegedly changed the locks and removed property; he later amended his complaint but did not identify Ivanfox by name.
- During discovery Romero learned Ivanfox was the subcontractor; he opposed LPS's summary judgment by identifying Ivanfox in his opposition but did not amend to name Ivanfox as a Doe.
- Three days before oral argument on LPS’s summary judgment motion Romero filed a separate suit (March 16, 2015) naming Ivanfox and asserting substantially the same claims; the first action later settled and was dismissed with prejudice.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for Ivanfox in the second suit, holding Romero’s claims were barred by res judicata; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Romero’s second suit against Ivanfox is barred by res judicata | Romero argued the suits involved different parties because Ivanfox was not named expressly in the first suit | Ivanfox argued it was effectively a Doe defendant in the first suit and plaintiffs could have litigated against it there | Court held res judicata bars the second suit because Ivanfox was sufficiently identified as a Doe defendant and Romero had opportunity to litigate in the first action |
| Whether the "quality of persons" requirement for res judicata is met when a defendant was a Doe | Romero contended Doe status meant different parties/qualities | Ivanfox argued naming Doe defendants that were later identified binds the plaintiff; parties were qualitatively the same | Court held parties were sufficiently identical/qualitatively the same because Ivanfox was identified during litigation and treated as agent of LPS |
| Whether the causes of action/subject matter are identical | Romero argued the second suit raised distinct claims or issues not resolved earlier | Ivanfox argued the claims arose from the same transactional nucleus and evidence | Court held causes of action and subject matter were the same — same facts, same rights, same evidence, so claim preclusion applies |
| Whether Romero’s procedural choices (timing, separate suit) avoid claim preclusion | Romero relied on Doe practice and timing to justify separate suit | Ivanfox argued Romero’s delay and litigation tactics were impermissible claim splitting | Court held Romero’s tactics constituted duplicitous litigation and res judicata prevents relitigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Kuhlman v. Thomas, 78 Wn. App. 115 (1995) (Doe defendants sufficiently identified so first suit can bar later suits against separately named employees/subcontractors)
- Rains v. State of Washington, 100 Wn.2d 660 (1983) (subject matter identity for res judicata when both actions involve same underlying deprivation)
- Berschauer Phillips Const. Co. v. Mut. of Enumclaw Ins. Co., 175 Wn. App. 222 (2013) (stipulated dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata)
- Lynn v. Dept. of Labor & Indus., 130 Wn. App. 829 (2005) (standards for reviewing claim preclusion and final judgment determination)
Affirmed.