PLATT v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., 1:14-cv-02088

CitiMortgage sought foreclosure against the Platts in Indiana state court in 2010.
The Platts counterclaimed libel, alleged insurance fraud, and failure to inform about foreclosure avoidance programs.
In 2011, the state court action was remanded to state court from federal court for lack of jurisdiction.
Seventeen months later, the state court granted Citi summary judgment on Citi’s claims and the Platts’ counterclaims.
The Platts filed this federal suit December 22, 2014, asserting libel, insurance fraud, and failure to obtain foreclosure avoidance programs.
The district court granted Citi’s motion to dismiss on res judicata grounds, concluding the current claims were barred by a prior final judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars Platts’ federal claims	Platts argue claims differ from prior action	Citi argues prior state court judgment on merits bars current claims	Yes; res judicata bars the claims

TacCo Falcon Point, Inc. v. Atlantic Ltd. Partnership XII, 937 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (four-factor test for claim preclusion under Indiana law)
Neese v. Kelley, 705 N.E.2d 1047 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (competent jurisdiction requirement for res judicata)
MicroVote General Corp. v. Ind. Election Comm’n, 924 N.E.2d 184 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (test for identity of causes of action)
Brzostowski v. Laidlaw Waste Sys., Inc., 49 F.3d 337 (7th Cir. 1995) (broad preclusion: issues that could have been raised)
Highway J Citizens Group v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 456 F.3d 734 (7th Cir. 2006) (res judicata bars issues that could have been raised)
Chicago Title Land Trust Co. v. Potash Corp., 664 F.3d 1075 (7th Cir. 2011) (application of Indiana law in federal res judicata analysis)