Comer v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc.
718 F.3d 460
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Gulf Coast residents claimed energy emissions caused global warming that intensified Hurricane Katrina and damaged their property.
- Initially, the district court dismissed the 2005 suit with prejudice for lack of standing and non-justiciability under political questions.
- A panel reversed in part, allowing nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims to proceed, and dismissed others for lack of standing.
- Before mandate, a majority voted to rehear en banc but a later recusal left insufficient quorum, leading to dismissal for lack of quorum and mandamus petition to the Supreme Court.
- Plaintiffs then filed a new complaint in 2011 asserting essentially the same claims against many of the same defendants in the same district court.
- The district court again dismissed as barred by res judicata, among other defenses; the Fifth Circuit affirmed based on res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether true res judicata bars the 2011 suit. | Appellants contend Comer I was not final or on the merits due to procedural irregularities. | Appellees argue Comer I was final on the merits and that res judicata bars relitigation. | True res judicata bars the 2011 suit. |
| Was Comer I final on the merits for res judicata purposes? | Appellants claim the district court judgment was not finally resolved due to appellate issues. | Appellees assert Comer I judgment remained final and unmodified. | Yes, Comer I was final on the merits for res judicata. |
| Should an equitable exception override res judicata due to lack of meaningful appellate review? | Appellants seek an equitable carve-out because they lacked meaningful appellate review. | Appellees urge no equitable exception to rigid res judicata doctrine. | No equitable exception applies; res judicata governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Iselin v. Meng, 307 F.2d 455 (5th Cir. 1962) (antidisruption of final judgments; res judicata doctrine)
- Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (Sup. Ct. 1981) (final, on-the-merits judgments possess res judicata effect)
- Fid. Standard Life Ins. Co. v. First Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 510 F.2d 272 (5th Cir. 1975) (unappealed judgments carry res judicata weight)
- U.S. v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (Sup. Ct. 1950) (mandate-related res judicata considerations; review limitations)
- Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2005) (definition of res judicata includes claim and issue preclusion)
- Singh, 428 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2005) (clarifies elements of true res judicata)
- Landmark Land Co. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 990 F.2d 807 (5th Cir. 1993) (final judgment on merits; res judicata repose)
- Raspar Wire Works, Inc. v. Leco Eng’g & Mach., Inc., 575 F.2d 530 (5th Cir. 1978) (judgment dismissal can have preclusive effect)
- Ins. Corp. of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinée, 456 U.S. 694 (Sup. Ct. 1982) (res judicata implications for jurisdictional determinations)