Maxwell v. US Bank National Association, As Trustee For JP Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Trust 2006-HE3 Asset Backed Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-HE3, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.
4:12-cv-00534
S.D. Tex.Jan 4, 2013Background
- Hollo man Maxwell files third suit related to foreclosure of his property; action removed to this court from state court.
- Earlier suits (2009 and 2010) challenged foreclosure and alleged TILA violations, standing, and MERS involvement; U.S. Bank named; MERS not always named as defendant.
- 2009 suit dismissed as time-barred on TILA claims and related asserted wrongdoings; MERS alleged but not named in live pleading.
- 2010 suit dismissed for failure to comply with court orders and prosecute; led to entry of judgments on the merits for various defendants.
- Current 2012 suit (amended May 16, 2012) asserts improper receipt/possession/transfer of the note and seeks injunctive, declaratory, and damages relief.
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) arguing res judicata bars the action; court analyzes whether four elements and the transactional nucleus support preclusion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the current action is barred by res judicata | Maxwell alleges not party to prior suits; post-foreclosure claims differ | Prior judgments preclude relitigation of same nucleus of facts | Yes; four-element res judicata satisfied, action dismissed |
| Whether MERS is a privy of U.S. Bank for res judicata purposes | MERS not a party; lack of privity breaks preclusion | MERS had a preexisting legal relationship as nominee; privy status exists | Yes; MERS deemed privy of U.S. Bank |
| Whether prior 2009/2010 judgments were final on the merits | Judgments not on merits because dismissals were procedural | Dismissals under Rule 41(b) represent judgments on the merits | Yes; judgments were on the merits |
| Whether the current and prior suits share the same nucleus of operative facts | Actions involve different stages (pre- vs post-foreclosure) | Nucleus is the foreclosure transaction and challenged rights to foreclose | Yes; same nucleus of operative facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127 (1979) (finality of judgments in res judicata)
- Medina v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 993 F.2d 499 (5th Cir. 1993) (preclusive effect of prior federal judgments)
- Uithoven v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 884 F.2d 844 (5th Cir. 1989) (extension of res judicata to claims that could have been raised)
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (virtual representation and privity framework for nonparty preclusion)
- Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559 (5th Cir. 2005) (transactional view of claims for res judicata)
- Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United States, 365 F.3d 385 (5th Cir. 2004) (defining transaction for res judicata purposes)
- United States v. Davenport, 484 F.3d 321 (5th Cir. 2007) (transactional approach to the nucleus of operative facts)