John E. Rodarte, Sr. v. Ralph Lopez
04-15-00012-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 13, 2015Background
- Appellees Bexar County and Sheriff Ralph Lopez filed a motion to dismiss an appeal by John E. Rodarte Sr., filed in the Fourth Court of Appeals (No. 4-15-00012-CV) on July 13, 2015.
- The appeal relates to Trial Court No. 2005-CI-18884 and a judgment signed December 5, 2011 in the 57th District Court of Bexar County.
- The same trial-court case was previously appealed to this Court and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction on May 8, 2013; Rodarte petitioned the Texas Supreme Court and review was denied on September 27, 2013 (rehearing denied December 6, 2013).
- Appellees contend the current appeal is barred by res judicata (claims preclusion) because the claims were or could have been litigated previously and there is a prior final judgment.
- Appellees alternatively invoke the law-of-the-case doctrine, arguing this Court’s prior disposition and the Texas Supreme Court’s denial of review control subsequent proceedings unless exceptional circumstances exist.
- Appellees also request the Court admonish Rodarte for filing frivolous, repetitive pleadings and ask the Court to dismiss the appeal; the filing is a motion by appellees, not an appellate ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal should be dismissed as barred by res judicata | Rodarte continues to pursue claims (implicit: that they are not precluded) | Appellees: prior final adjudication and appeals preclude relitigation | Motion seeks dismissal under res judicata (document does not record court's ruling) |
| Whether law-of-the-case bars relitigation | Rodarte: (implicit) prior rulings do not prevent current relief | Appellees: prior appellate decisions control subsequent stages; no exceptional circumstances shown | Motion asserts law-of-the-case should apply; no ruling in motion document |
| Whether appellant should be admonished or sanctioned for repeated filings | Rodarte: (no argument presented in this filing) | Appellees: Rodarte is abusing process and should be admonished to stop filing frivolous pleadings | Appellees request admonition; motion only, no court disposition in this document |
| Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal given prior dismissals | Rodarte: (implicit challenge to jurisdictional bar) | Appellees: prior dismissal and Supreme Court denial of review show finality and foreclose further appeals | Appellees argue lack of jurisdiction for relitigation; motion contains no court decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp. ex rel. Sunbelt Fed. Sav., 837 S.W.2d 627 (Tex. 1992) (defines res judicata/claims preclusion elements)
- Amstadt v. United States Brass Corp., 919 S.W.2d 644 (Tex. 1996) (articulates elements required for claim preclusion)
- Loram Maintenance of Way, Inc. v. Ianni, 210 S.W.3d 593 (Tex. 2006) (describes law-of-the-case doctrine applicability)
- Briscoe v. Goodmark Corp., 102 S.W.3d 714 (Tex. 2003) (discusses appellate courts being bound by initial decisions in same case)
- Alberti v. Klevenhagen, 46 F.3d 1347 (5th Cir. 1995) (recognizes law-of-the-case applies to implicit holdings)