Touris v. Flathead County
2011 MT 165
| Mont. | 2011Background
- Touris and Sneed challenged a Flathead County zoning denial and pursued judicial review; the County defended with summary judgment arguments.
- Touris I (DV-08-328(A)) was filed February 14, 2008 and dismissed with prejudice on April 21, 2009.
- Touris II, filed March 14, 2008, repeated a nearly identical factual scenario with 11 counts across various defendants.
- The District Court dismissed some counts in Touris II in January 2009 but left others pending; res judicata was later raised as a defense.
- In 2010 the District Court granted summary judgment on Touris II based on res judicata; Touris appeals the decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars Touris II | Touris II presents new procedural posture but same underlying claims. | Touris I was final and identical in subject matter and issues; Touris II should be barred. | Yes; res judicata bars Touris II. |
| Whether Touris I was a final judgment on the merits | Dismissal with prejudice does not necessarily mean final on the merits. | Dismissal with prejudice constitutes a final judgment on the merits for res judicata. | Final judgment on the merits; res judicata applies. |
| Whether the subject matter of Touris I and Touris II is the same | Touris II involves some different procedural posture. | Both actions rely on identical facts and challenge the same zoning denial. | Yes; identical subject matter. |
| Whether the issues in Touris I and Touris II are the same | Touris II raises additional or different theories. | Touris II litigates the same claims and theories already raised in Touris I. | Yes; issues overlap and relate to same subject matter. |
| Whether the County waived res judicata | County acquiesced to concurrent proceedings, avoiding waiver. | Widespread case law disfavors waiver; res judicata applies regardless of split filings. | No; waiver defense deferred; res judicata still bars. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beasley v. Flathead County, 350 Mont. 177, 206 P.3d 915 (2009 MT 121) (dismissal with prejudice constitutes final judgment on merits)
- Harlem Irrigation Dist. v. Montana Seventeenth Judicial Dist. Court, 271 Mont. 129, 894 P.2d 943 (1995) (finality and identity of subject matter in res judicata)
- Wiser v. Montana Bd. of Dentistry, 360 Mont. 1, 251 P.3d 675 (2011 MT 56) (res judicata elements and final judgments on merits)
- Baltrusch v. Baltrusch, 331 Mont. 281, 130 P.3d 1267 (2006 MT 51) (elements of res judicata and finality principles)
- Xin Xu v. McLaughlin Research Inst. for Biomedical Science, 328 Mont. 232, 119 P.3d 100 (2005 MT 209) (res judicata does not require merits resolution to predominate)
- Somont Oil Co. v. A & G Drilling, Inc., 348 Mont. 12, 199 P.3d 241 (2008 MT 447) (avoidance of duplicative litigation aligned with res judicata goals)
- Olympic Coast Inv., Inc. v. Wright, 325 Mont. 307, 105 P.3d 743 (2005 MT 4) (context for final judgment timing in res judicata)
- United States ex rel. Barajas v. Northrop Corp., 147 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 1998) (relation of final judgment date to res judicata)
- Fisher v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 297 Mont. 201, 991 P.2d 452 (1999 MT 308) (not a claim-splitting case; broad original complaint may preclude later action)