Taylor v. Law Office of Galiher, Clarke & Galiher, Civil Action No. 2016-1912

Taylor previously sued the Law Office of Galiher, Clarke & Galiher and Richard W. Galiher, Jr. for legal malpractice arising from their 2009 representation of her in a workers’ compensation matter seeking modification to obtain permanent total disability benefits.
The prior action was dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; that dismissal was affirmed on appeal by the D.C. Circuit.
Taylor filed a second pro se complaint asserting the same malpractice claim against the same defendants based on the same underlying workers’ compensation proceedings and hearings (2009–2010).
The Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the new action should not be dismissed as barred by res judicata and Taylor filed a response arguing the prior Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal was not an adjudication on the merits and that defendants must raise res judicata as a defense.
The Court concluded the prior dismissal operated as a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes, and therefore Taylor’s renewed malpractice claims share the same nucleus of facts and are precluded.
The Court sua sponte dismissed the current complaint for failure to state a claim because the claims are barred by res judicata, citing its authority to dismiss prior to defendant response under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Taylor’s renewed malpractice claim is barred by res judicata	Taylor: prior Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal was a procedural defeat, not an adjudication on the merits, so claim is not precluded	Defendants: the prior dismissal was a final judgment on the merits and bars relitigation of the same cause of action	Held: Court found res judicata applies; the prior judgment precludes Taylor’s claims because they arise from the same nucleus of facts
Whether the Court may dismiss the new action before defendants answer	Taylor: defendants must assert res judicata as an affirmative defense; Court should not dismiss before response	Court/Defendants: Court may dismiss sua sponte where complaint fails to state a claim and under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)(2)	Held: Court may and did dismiss without waiting for defendants’ response because the complaint is plainly precluded by res judicata

U.S. Indus., Inc. v. Blake Constr. Co., Inc., 765 F.2d 195 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (one suit should present all claims arising from same transaction)
Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (elements of res judicata/claim preclusion)
Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (cause-of-action analysis focuses on shared nucleus of facts)
Page v. United States, 729 F.2d 818 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (res judicata bars claims based on same facts regardless of legal theory)
Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal can have preclusive effect)
Polsby v. Thompson, 201 F. Supp. 2d 45 (D.D.C. 2002) (preclusive effect of dismissals that fail to state a claim)
Hardison v. Alexander, 655 F.2d 1281 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (res judicata bars matters that could have been litigated earlier)
I.A.M. Nat’l Pension Fund v. Indus. Gear Mfg. Co., 723 F.2d 944 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (res judicata forecloses all that might have been litigated)
Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (1979) (policy justifications for claim preclusion: prevent vexation, conserve resources, avoid inconsistent decisions)