479 P.3d 482
Kan. Ct. App.2020Background
- Troy Lanning II was fatally shot by Wichita police; his mother Dawn Herington sued the officer and City asserting federal §1983 claims and related state tort claims.
- The federal district court granted summary judgment to defendants on the federal civil‑rights claims and dismissed the state tort claims without prejudice for lack of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1367.
- Herington refiled her state tort claims in Sedgwick County District Court; the defendants moved to dismiss based on res judicata.
- The state district court applied the Kansas Supreme Court’s rule from Stanfield and Rhoten and entered summary judgment for the defendants, treating the federal dismissal as preclusive of the state claims.
- The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed because it is bound to follow Stanfield and Rhoten, though a concurring judge criticized those precedents as anomalous, unfair, and potentially preempted by federal law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a federal dismissal of state claims for lack of jurisdiction bars refiling in state court via res judicata | Herington: federal dismissal was not on the merits, so state claims may be litigated in state court | Defendants: Kansas res judicata rule (Stanfield/Rhoten) bars refiling when federal court entered judgment on federal claims and dismissed state claims | Court of Appeals: Affirmed — bound to apply Stanfield/Rhoten; res judicata bars the state claims |
| Whether the Court of Appeals could decline to follow Kansas Supreme Court precedent | Herington: lower courts may apply conventional preclusion doctrines instead of Stanfield | Defendants: must follow Kansas Supreme Court precedents | Held: Court of Appeals must follow Kansas Supreme Court (Stanfield/Rhoten) absent clear indication of change |
| Whether Stanfield’s formulation departs from conventional res judicata doctrine | Herington: conventional doctrine (Jackson Trak, federal law) allows refiling after jurisdictional dismissal | Defendants: Stanfield governs Kansas preclusion | Held: Majority applied Stanfield; concurrence agreed outcome but criticized Stanfield as inconsistent with mainstream law |
| Whether Stanfield/Rhoten conflict with federal law (28 U.S.C. §1367) and the Supremacy Clause | Herington: Stanfield effectively nullifies §1367 by precluding relitigation in state court; thus may be preempted | Defendants: state res judicata rule is binding | Held: Court of Appeals bound to apply state precedent; concurring opinion argued Stanfield likely conflicts with §1367 and the Supremacy Clause and urged Kansas Supreme Court to reconsider |
Key Cases Cited
- Stanfield v. Osborne Indus., 263 Kan. 388 (Kan. 1997) (Kansas Supreme Court rule treating federal dismissal of pendent state claims as preclusive)
- Rhoten v. Dickson, 290 Kan. 92 (Kan. 2010) (Kansas Supreme Court reaffirming Stanfield)
- Jackson Trak Group v. Mid States Port Authority, 242 Kan. 683 (Kan. 1988) (traditional Kansas res judicata principle distinguishing jurisdictional dismissals)
- United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (U.S. 1966) (federal practice: state claims dismissed without prejudice may be litigated in state court)
- Semtek Int'l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2001) (federal law governs preclusive effect of federal judgments)
- Jinks v. Richland County, 538 U.S. 456 (U.S. 2003) (upholding §1367(d) tolling and permitting refiling of state claims dismissed by federal court)
- Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265 (U.S. 1961) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not an adjudication on the merits)