MEMORANDUM OPINION
Now before the Court comes defendant Shaw Pittman’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Upon consideration of the motion [4], plaintiff Capitol Hill Group’s opposition [34], defendant Shaw Pittman’s reply [37], the entire record herein, and applicable law, the Court will GRANT Shaw Pittman’s Motion for Summary Judgment for the reasons set forth below.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Capitol Hill Group (“CHG”) filed suit against defendants Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP (collectively “Shaw Pittman”), in addition to their employees Paul A. Tummonds, Jr. and Patrick J. Potter, alleging a number of claims stemming from Shaw Pittman’s representation of CHG in a bankruptcy proceeding. Since the plaintiff is asserting claims of legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty arising out of Shaw Pittman’s representation of CHG, and Shaw Pittman is defending on the ground that these claims are barred by res judicata, two sets of facts are relevant to this Motion. First, the events that occurred during Shaw Pittman’s representation of CHG and in the months after the termination of the representation. Second, the earlier litigation between Shaw Pittman and CHG that occurred in bankruptcy court.
A. Shaw Pittman’s Representation of CHG
The material facts underlying this suit are not in dispute. CHG retained Shaw' Pittman to represent it before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia in a case under Chapter 11 of the federal Bankruptcy Code in 2002. During the bankruptcy proceedings, the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs issued a citation requiring CHG to provide off-street parking for a hospital and nursing center owned by CHG. (PL’s Opp’n 2.) As a result, Shaw Pittman began representing CHG in its dealings with the Board of Zoning Adjustment (“BZA”) and Zoning Administrator regarding the amount of parking spaces that would be required with respect to its property holdings in June 2002. (Id.)
Athough the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs initially issued a citation requiring CHG to provide 225 parking spaces, the Zoning Administrator dismissed the citation and issued CHG certificates of occupancy stating that CHG was in compliance with applicable zoning regulations in March of 2003.
Id.
Subsequently, neighbors of the CHG appealed to the BZA the Zoning Administrator’s decision to issue the certificates of occupancy.
Id.
On January 6, 2004, the BZA orally affirmed the Zoning Administrator’s issuance of the certificates of occupancy to CHG, while Shaw Pittman was still representing CHG. (Def.’s Mem. 6.) Six days earlier, Shaw Pittman had filed a motion seeking to terminate its engagement with
On January 7, 2004, the day after the BZA orally affirmed the Zoning Administrator’s issuance of certificates of occupancy, the bankruptcy court approved Shaw Pittman’s request to terminate its representation of CHG on all matters. (Potter Aff. ¶ 15.) Shaw Pittman provided no further legal services to CHG after January 7, 2004, (Id. ¶ 15.) Following the termination of the representation, Donald Hartman, in-house counsel for CHG, requested that Shaw Pittman turn over all BZA files in order for CHG to retain substitute zoning counsel. On January 15, 2004, Shaw Pittman transferred the BZA files to CHG. (Tummonds Aff. Ex. 10.).
While at the BZA on an unrelated matter on February 10, 2004, an associate with Shaw Pittman learned that the BZA would reconsider its January 6, 2004 decision affirming the Zoning Administrator’s decision to grant certificates of occupancy to CHG, and the associate relayed this information to defendant Tummonds. (Tum-monds Aff. ¶ 19.) On February 11, 2004, defendant Tummonds sent a letter to CHG’s in-house counsel, Mr. Hartman, advising him that the BZA would take the matter up at a special public meeting on February 24, 2004, at 9:00 A.M., and CHG received this letter. Id. In the letter, Mr. Tummonds provided Mr. Hartman with the name and number of specific personnel at the BZA whom he could contact. However, Shaw Pittman did not notify the BZA that it had withdrawn from the representation of CHG. (Def.’s Mem. 10.)
Although Mr. Hartman and CHG were aware of the reconsideration hearing, apparently neither Mr. Hartman nor any other representative of CHG attended the hearing. (Def.’s Mem. 10.). At the hearing, the BZA decided by a vote of 5-0 to reverse its earlier decision and require CHG to provide one parking space for each bed in the hospital and nursing center — CHG would now be required to provide 177 parking spaces. (PL’s Opp’n 3.) On September 9, 2004, the BZA issued a written decision reflecting its oral ruling on February 24, 2004, and sent the order to Mr. Tummonds at Shaw Pittman. (Hartman Aff. Ex. 1.) However, Shaw Pittman had not represented CHG as of January 7, 2004, and never forwarded the order to CHG. (Pl.’s Opp’n 4) CHG did not learn of the written order until March of 2005, after the time to appeal the order had lapsed. (Id.)
B. CHG and Shaw Pittman’s Fee Disputes in Bankruptcy Court
After CHG and Shaw Pittman’s relationship ended, they were involved in a number of fee disputes before the bankruptcy court. The first fee dispute was a result of CHG refusing to pay Shaw Pittman for services rendered during the zoning proceedings because of its belief that the fees were unreasonable. (Potter Aff. Ex. 14;
Id.
Ex. 15;
Id.
Ex. 16.) In preparation
for
the fee dispute hearing at bankruptcy court in April, CHG conducted discovery on Shaw Pittman and deposed one of Shaw Pittman’s employees (Potter Aff. ¶ 19.) The bankruptcy court held two contested hearings on the first fee application in April 2004. (Potter Aff. Ex. 17-18.) The bankruptcy judge granted Shaw Pittman’s Motion for Summary Judgment and awarded the firm fees based primarily on its conclusion that CHG had agreed not to contest the amount of the fees. The bankruptcy judge also made oral findings that Shaw Pittman’s services were professional and that Shaw Pittman deserved to be compensated for those services. (Potter Aff. Ex. 18 at 23-25.) This Court affirmed the decision of the bankruptcy court,
In re Capitol Hill Group,
C. CHG Files Suit
CHG filed the instant suit on September 7, 2007 in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. CHG’s complaint asserts legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty; and breach of contract claims. (Comp.6-9) CHG asserts that these claims arise out of Shaw Pittman’s deficient representation of CHG in two respects: (1) Shaw Pittman failed to assert an argument during the zoning proceedings that one of CHG’s buildings was a “historic designation” site and therefore would not be subject to parking restrictions, and (2) Shaw Pittman failed to take reasonable steps to notify the BZA that it had withdrawn from representing CHG and failed to forward CHG a written order that the BZA sent to Shaw Pittman. Shaw Pittman subsequently removed the case to this Court on October 26, 2007, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334, and filed the present Motion for Summary Judgment contending that CHG’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, the statute of limitations, and the lack of a cognizable duty on the part of Shaw Pittman. Because this Court concludes that CHG’s claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata, it is unnecessary to resolve Shaw Pittman’s other arguments.
II. APPLICABLE LAW
A. Summary Judgment Standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), a court must grant summary judgment when the evidence in the record demonstrates that there are no disputed issues of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment on the undisputed facts as a matter of law. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c);
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
B. Res Judicata
The common law doctrine of res judicata — also known as “claim preclusion” — states that a “right, question or fact distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be disputed in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies.”
Montana v. United States,
The four res judicata elements traditionally applied by this Court are: (1) an identity of parties; (2) a judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) a final judgment on the merits; and (4) an identity of the cause of action.
Tembec, Inc., v. United States,
III. ANALYSIS
The fact that the first three elements of res judicata are present in this case is not in dispute. As for the first element, the parties in this case are identical to the parties in the bankruptcy fee disputes. The second element of res judicata is the requirement that there was a judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction. The bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over the fee disputes between CHG and Shaw Pittman is not in dispute and as noted above the principles of res judicata apply to decisions of bankruptcy courts.
Katchen,
In this case, all three counts of the plaintiffs complaint (legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty), arose from the same nucleus of facts as the fee application disputes that were previously decided in bankruptcy court. Both disputes involve the services of Shaw Pittman while representing CHG during the zoning disputes. Both rely on the same documents, and both would require the same type of discovery and analysis. CHG asserts that the present dispute does not arise from the same nucleus of operative facts because the bankruptcy judge awarded Shaw Pittman fees based on a contractual no contest provision, not on the basis of the quality of Shaw Pittman’s services. There are several problems with this argument.
First, in contrast to CHG’s claim that the bankruptcy judge awarded fees based solely on the no-contest provision (Pl.’s Opp’n 6), the bankruptcy court did make a finding that Shaw Pittman was entitled to the fees in part because the representation it provided was competent and professional:
I’ve read the proffer presented by the Debtor, Debtor’s counsel, and I’m satisfied that the fees in this case were reasonable. This case presented several hard-fought issues.... I’m satisfied that the work was performed in a professional way and that it was for the benefit of the estate.... I’m satisfied that the work was necessary and reasonable and ought to be compensated in the circumstances.
(Potter Aff. Ex. 18 at 23-25). (See also Potter Aff. Ex. 28 at 147) (bankruptcy court stating that Shaw Pittman’s representation of itself in the bankruptcy court fee disputes was “reflective of the same level of advocacy that Shaw Pittman extended to Capitol Hill Group during the case.... ”); (Potter Aff. Ex. 17 at 59) (bankruptcy court stating that the court and the United States Trustee has an independent duty, to scrutinize fee applications).
Second, even assuming that the bankruptcy court did not inquire into the adequacy of Shaw Pittman’s representation during the fee disputes, judicial analysis of an argument is not a prerequisite for the application of res judicata. Res judica-ta is not only intended to prevent relitigation of claims that were actually raised in prior litigation, but also to “prevent litigation of matters that
should have been
raised in an earlier suit.”
Natural Res. Def. Council v. E.P.A.,
CHG asserts that res judicata cannot apply in this case because CHG was not aware of the relevant facts constituting malpractice at the time of the bankruptcy fee dispute hearings. (PL’s Opp’n 26.) CHG cites
In re R & C Petroleum,
Specifically, CHG states that it was not aware of the “historic designation” argument that Shaw Pittman failed to raise during the zoning proceedings until the Spring of 2006. Since the last bankruptcy fee hearing occurred in April of 2006, CHG asserts that it could not have raised this argument. (PL’s Opp’n at 17.) While CHG may not have been aware of the precise historical designation argument until the Spring of 2006, it was aware of the general nature of its claims well before the final bankruptcy hearing.
(See
Potter Aff. Ex. 15 (CHG’s objections to Shaw Pittman’s fees on the basis that the services were unnecessary and the fees unreasonable, filed January 30, 2004));
See also In re Capitol Hill Group,
Even if CHG were required to possess knowledge of the precise argument that Shaw Pittman should have raised a historic designation defense, plaintiff did have constructive knowledge of this argument well in time to assert it at the bankruptcy hearings. An argument derived from municipal regulations (Pl.’s Opp’n at 5) is easily ascertainable and was certainly discoverable by a plaintiff. At the time of the final bankruptcy hearing on April 12, 2006, it had been over two years since Shaw Pittman withdrew from the representation of CHG and over a year since CHG learned that the BZA’s parking decision had been reconsidered and reversed. The plaintiff had three days of discovery, representation from counsel, and almost 2 years of hearings in which to assert its claim
2
— with due diligence it would have discovered and researched the historical designation argument in time to assert it in the previous litigation arising out of the same facts. Mere failure to discover viable arguments in support of a claim during previous litigation does not preclude the application of res judicata.
Cf. Byers v. Burleson,
As far as the claim that Shaw Pittman committed breach of contract, malpractice, and breach of fiduciary duty by failing to forward a written order to its former client CHG, this claim is also barred by res judicata. CHG learned that the BZA had issued a written order and that the time for appealing the order had passed in March of 2005. (Def.’s Ex. D at 2.) CHG engaged in a series of e-mail exchanges with Shaw Pittman and learned that the written order was never forwarded by Shaw Pittman in April of 2005.
(See
Potter Aff. Ex. 26 at 1-2.) Yet CHG failed to make a claim based on this omission in a subsequent fee application hearing in the bankruptcy court on August 1, 2005. CHG also did not disclose this claim to the bankruptcy court when the court asked CHG to disclose any claims that it might have against Shaw Pittman on April 12, 2006. (Potter Aff. Ex. 32.) Instead, CHG vaguely stated that “there are concerns that CHG has about the representation that Shaw Pittman provided during its representation of Capitol Hill Group that began in 1999 or whatever. But nothing’s been filed.”
3
If Capitol Hill had concerns about
CHG also argues that the bankruptcy fee litigation would have been an inappropriate place to raise the malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty claims. Specifically, CHG argues that each fee application hearing should be analyzed as a separate “litigation unit.” As for CHG’s claims based on Shaw Pittman’s failure to argue that the buildings were historic, these claims are barred even if the hearings are analyzed separately. The historic designation argument was based on a municipal regulations, and therefore was discoverable with due diligence, and could have been asserted as a defense against Shaw Pittman’s first fee application in the first hearing.
Of course, CHG could not have asserted the claims that Shaw Pittman had failed to forward the BZA’s final written order at the first fee application hearings because at the time of the April 2004 hearings on the first fee application, this omission had not yet occurred. Nevertheless, CHG learned of Shaw Pittman’s failure to forward the written order in April 2005, and therefore could have asserted this argument in the hearings on August 1, 2005, and April 12, 2006. CHG argues that these later fee hearings were focused solely on the costs incurred by Shaw Pittman in defending itself in the first fee applieation, and therefore other claims CHG had against Shaw Pittman would have been jurisdictionally and procedurally barred. (Pl.’s Opp’n 33-34.)
This argument is unpersuasive. All of the fee disputes arose from the same core of operative facts. It does not matter that the fees for Shaw Pittman’s services may already have been awarded by the time of a later malpractice judgment because Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60 are applicable in bankruptcy, which gives bankruptcy courts broad authority to reconsider judgments.
Iannochino,
Not only are the formal elements of res judicata met in this case, but application of res judicata ensures that the rationales of
Barring the plaintiffs claims in this case conforms with the approach of other federal courts when presented with a plaintiff who failed to assert claims against one who provided professional services during the bankruptcy fee application hearings.
Grausz v. Englander,
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth in this Opinion, the Court finds that plaintiff CHG had a full and fair opportunity to litigate all of its claims arising out of Shaw Pittman’s representation of CHG at the prior hearings and trials in bankruptcy court. Accordingly, CHG is barred from relitigating these claims as a matter of law. Defendant Shaw Pittman’s motion for summary judgment will be GRANTED.
A separate order shall issue this date.
SO ORDERED.
ORDER
Upon full consideration of defendant’s motion [4] for summary judgment, the opposition brief, reply, the entire record herein, and applicable law, it is hereby
. ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and summary judgment is entered in favor of defendant; it is further hereby
ORDERED that plaintiffs motion [36] for an order directing discovery to com-
ORDERED that defendant’s motion to stay discovery [39] is DENIED as moot.
SO ORDERED.
Notes
. Plaintiff's strategy of presenting claims and withholding associated claims until its original claims are rejected is not new. During the fee dispute litigation, the bankruptcy court noted: "Capitol Hill Group has itself to blame for the fact that a substantial amount of time was required to be expended in this Court and in the District Court addressing Capitol Hill Group's contentions ... this case was like peeling an onion. Shaw Pittman would try to dispose of the matter quickly, without the necessity of hearings, without the
. Supra 146-47.
. CHG also stated at this hearing that it had no further claims that "relate!] to these bankruptcy proceedings.” (Potter Aff. Ex. 32 at 3.) As noted above, however, claims of malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty for services rendered arise out of the same core of operative facts as a bankruptcy fee application hearing regarding those services.
Supra
at 149-50. Therefore, the present lawsuit appears to contradict CHG’s representation to the bankruptcy court. It also appears to contradict CHG’s May 14, 2007 filing in the bankruptcy court,