Merrilee Stewart v. IHT Ins. Agency Group, 990 F.3d 455

Merrilee Stewart was a co-owner of RRL Holding Co. of Ohio and former president of IHT Insurance Agency Group; she formed a potential competitor and was removed from the presidency.
RRL voted to buy out Stewart’s membership units; Stewart refused to sell, and RRL cut off her health and life insurance benefits.
State court sent disputes to arbitration; the arbitration panel ordered Stewart to sell her units and required her to release all claims against RRL and affiliates "from the beginning of the world" to that day.
The state court affirmed the arbitration award. While arbitration was pending, Stewart and her son sued in federal court alleging, among other things, ERISA violations (29 U.S.C. §§ 1161–1163) for revoking benefits.
The district court dismissed the federal complaint with prejudice on two alternative grounds: (1) Stewart had released her claims in the arbitration release; and (2) res judicata barred relitigation.
On appeal the Stewarts challenged only the release ruling (not the res judicata ground); the Sixth Circuit held they forfeited any challenge to res judicata and affirmed the dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether Stewart released her federal claims by agreeing to the arbitration release	Stewart: release did not bar her ERISA and related claims	RRL: the broad arbitration release bars all claims up to that date, including ERISA claims	Court: release barred the claims (district court’s release ruling stands)
2. Whether res judicata bars Stewart’s suit	Stewart: arbitration/earlier proceedings did not fully litigate all matters, so res judicata shouldn’t apply	RRL: prior arbitration and confirmation preclude relitigation of removal and benefits	Court: res judicata would bar the suit; Stewarts forfeited challenge on appeal by not raising it properly
3. Whether dismissal should have been without prejudice or allowed amendment	Stewart: dismissal should be without prejudice or leave to amend; proposed amendments could add claims/facts	RRL: dismissal with prejudice was appropriate given claims and record	Court: dismissal with prejudice not an abuse of discretion; Stewarts did not show amendment would cure defects

Island Creek Coal Co. v. Wilkerson, 910 F.3d 254 (6th Cir. 2018) (argument raised first in reply brief is forfeited)
Hardrick v. City of Detroit, 876 F.3d 238 (6th Cir. 2017) (appellate courts review judgments, not explanations in opinions)
Craighead v. E.F. Hutton & Co., 899 F.2d 485 (6th Cir. 1990) (standard for reviewing dismissal with prejudice for abuse of discretion)
Ernst v. Rising, 427 F.3d 351 (6th Cir. 2005) (dismissal with prejudice reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Newberry v. Silverman, 789 F.3d 636 (6th Cir. 2015) (dismissal with prejudice and denial of leave to amend appropriate when complaint cannot be cured by amendment)