Turner v. First New Mexico Bank, 2015 NMCA 068

Plaintiffs filed an initial complaint (First Complaint) alleging UCC bad-faith conduct, failure to report loan repayment to credit agencies (FCRA-related), and a claim for punitive damages; Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 1-012(B)(6).
Judge Viramontes dismissed the First Complaint in July 2012 "without prejudice," concluding the UCC did not create an independent cause of action, the FCRA preempted the state claim as to a personal loan, and punitive damages were unavailable under the UCC.
Plaintiffs did not appeal and instead filed a virtually identical Second Complaint in September 2012; Count II added minor language asserting effects on "business relationships" and "commercial credit."
Defendant moved to dismiss the Second Complaint, arguing res judicata and collateral estoppel barred relitigation and that the complaint failed to state a claim; Judge Robinson dismissed the Second Complaint with prejudice.
The court of appeals reviewed de novo whether the prior dismissal (though labeled "without prejudice") was a final judgment on the merits and therefore entitled to claim-preclusive effect; it affirmed dismissal on claim-preclusion grounds.
A special concurrence agreed with the final disposition but would have rested affirmance on Rule 1-012(B)(6) failure-to-state-a-claim rather than applying res judicata to a dismissal without prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a dismissal "without prejudice" can be a final judgment for res judicata	Dismissal without prejudice leaves right to refile; no preclusive effect	The dismissal fully disposed of the case and was a final judgment on the merits	Dismissal was a final judgment and can have preclusive effect
Whether dismissal under Rule 1-012(B)(6) constitutes judgment "on the merits"	Plaintiffs implicitly: the dismissal was not a merits bar because it was "without prejudice"	Defendant: Rule 1-012(B)(6) dismissal was decided on the merits and was litigated	Court: A 1-012(B)(6) dismissal after briefing and hearing is a judgment on the merits
Whether the parties and causes of action were the same between suits	Plaintiffs: Second Complaint made minor changes (Count II) that avoid preemption	Defendant: Parties and causes are the same; minor wording doesn't avoid FCRA preemption	Court: Parties same; cause of action same; Count II still preempted under FCRA
Whether res judicata bars the Second Complaint	Plaintiffs: "without prejudice" dismissal prevents claim preclusion	Defendant: All elements of claim preclusion satisfied	Court: All elements met; res judicata bars the Second Complaint

Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (dismissal for failure to state a claim treated as judgment on the merits)
AVX Corp. v. Cabot Corp., 424 F.3d 28 (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals ordinarily treated as on-the-merits dismissals)