Dunn v. Board of Curators
413 S.W.3d 375
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Three veterans (Plaintiffs) sued the University of Missouri and the Missouri Coordinating Board for Higher Education (MCBHE), alleging violation of the Missouri Returning Heroes’ Education Act and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act by applying other scholarship/loan credits before Heroes’ Act discounts.
- Plaintiffs first filed a class-action petition (Dunn I) in St. Louis County; the trial court dismissed Dunn I for failure to state a claim before class certification. Plaintiffs did not amend or appeal that dismissal.
- Plaintiffs filed a second, substantively identical action (Dunn II) asserting the same claims and material facts, adding some factual elaboration about the University–MCBHE relationship and arguing sovereign immunity didn’t apply.
- Defendants moved to dismiss Dunn II as barred by res judicata based on Dunn I’s dismissal; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed Dunn II.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the Dunn I dismissal was not a final adjudication on the merits (because it was without prejudice) and that their Dunn II pleading stated cognizable claims.
- The court affirmed, holding Dunn I’s dismissal (and Plaintiffs’ failure to amend or replead) operated as a final, appealable judgment for res judicata purposes, barring re-litigation of the same claims and facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars Dunn II | Dunn I dismissal was without prejudice, so res judicata inapplicable; Dunn II should proceed | Dunn I dismissal for failure to state a claim became final when Plaintiffs elected to stand on it; Dunn II repeats same claims/facts and is barred | Affirmed: res judicata bars Dunn II because Dunn I dismissal was final and Plaintiffs relied on the same substantial facts |
| Whether Dunn II pleads a cognizable claim | Dunn II adds facts about University–MCBHE relationship and sovereign immunity to state a claim | Even if additional facts alleged, claims are identical to Dunn I and so precluded | Not reached on merits because res judicata disposes of the case |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Commercial Union Ins., 943 S.W.2d 640 (Mo. banc 1997) (dismissal for failure to state a claim can be final for res judicata)
- Finnegan v. Old Republic Title Co. of St. Louis, Inc., 246 S.W.3d 928 (Mo. banc 2008) (summary judgment standard on appeal)
- WEA Crestwood Plaza, L.L.C. v. Flamers Charburgers, Inc., 24 S.W.3d 1 (Mo.App.E.D.2000) (motions asserting res judicata treated as summary judgment when prior judgment presented)
- Mahoney v. Doerhoff Surgical Servs., Inc., 807 S.W.2d 503 (Mo. banc 1991) (standing on a dismissed petition makes the dismissal a final judgment)
- State ex rel. Ill. v. Jones, 920 S.W.2d 116 (Mo.App.E.D.1996) (discussion of finality of dismissals for failure to state a claim)