Peterson v. Armstrong
2014 UT App 247
| Utah Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Grandmother (petitioner) filed an ex parte civil stalking injunction in First District Court based on alleged incidents in 2009 and April 2012; the First District denied the ex parte petition without a hearing, finding the events were not stalking and noting the most recent event was four months earlier.
- Seventeen days later Grandmother filed a second civil stalking petition in Fourth District Court relying on the same 2009 and 2012 incidents plus additional alleged incidents; the Fourth District issued a temporary ex parte injunction and held an evidentiary hearing after Husband (respondent) requested it.
- At the Fourth District hearing Husband moved to dismiss, arguing the second petition was not brought in good faith because the First District already considered the same incidents; the Fourth District denied dismissal, concluded there was "reason to believe" stalking occurred, and entered a permanent injunction based on the 2009 and 2012 incidents.
- Husband appealed, arguing claim preclusion (res judicata) barred relitigation because the First District’s denial was a final judgment on the merits as to those incidents; Grandmother argued the First District order did not decide merits and Husband had not appeared there.
- The majority held the First District’s denial was a final judgment on the merits as to the 2009 and 2012 incidents (it applied law to facts and concluded petitioner failed to show "reason to believe" stalking), so claim preclusion barred the Fourth District from granting an injunction based solely on those same incidents.
- The majority reversed the Fourth District’s injunction and remanded for consideration of Husband’s request for attorney fees; Judge Pearce dissented, arguing Husband failed to prove the First District denial was intended as a final merits judgment and warning against applying preclusion to pro se ex parte denials absent clear finality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Grandmother) | Defendant's Argument (Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claim preclusion bars a second stalking petition based on incidents already presented in an earlier denied ex parte petition | First District denial did not reach merits; petitioner may refile or add allegations in another district; denial was not a final adjudication | First District denial was a final judgment on the merits as to the incidents, so res judicata prevents relitigation in a later action | Held: Yes. The First District denial was a final merits determination as to the 2009 and 2012 incidents; claim preclusion barred the Fourth District injunction based solely on those incidents |
| Whether failure of respondent to appear in the first proceeding prevents preclusive effect | Denial without respondent appearance means no final merits adjudication | Respondent's absence does not prevent a prior court from applying law to facts and issuing a final merits denial | Held: No. Absence of Husband at the first proceeding does not defeat preclusion if the earlier order applied law to the facts |
| Whether additional alleged incidents in second petition avoid preclusion | Additional allegations predate the first petition and could/should have been raised earlier, so preclusion still applies | If new incidents occurred after the first petition, preclusion would not bar a second petition | Held: Only subsequent incidents (occurring after the first petition) would avoid preclusion; here the Fourth District relied only on incidents already decided, so preclusion applies |
| Whether district court should award attorney fees after reversal | Grandmother argued her claims had merit | Husband sought fees under the civil stalking statute for bad-faith filing and defense costs | Held: Remanded for the district court to exercise its discretion under the civil stalking statute to consider awarding Husband fees incurred in district court and on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Macris & Assocs., Inc. v. Neways, Inc., 16 P.3d 1214 (Utah 2000) (standard of review for legal questions and res judicata principles)
- Moss v. Parr Waddoups Brown Gee & Loveless, 285 P.3d 1157 (Utah 2012) (defines claim and issue preclusion elements)
- Nipper v. Douglas, 90 P.3d 649 (Utah Ct. App. 2004) (claim preclusion applies when later suit is predicated on same operative facts)
- Sommerville v. State, 297 P.3d 665 (Utah Ct. App. 2013) (what constitutes a judgment "on the merits")
- Tortorello v. Tortorello, 153 P.3d 1117 (Haw. 2007) (protective-order context applying res judicata to second petition based on preexisting events)
- White v. Bain, 752 N.W.2d 203 (S.D. 2008) (holding res judicata inapplicable where subsequent acts occurred after the first petition)