Christine WITTHOHN, d/b/a Green Parrot Enterprises, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation; Chubb & Son, Incorporated, a corporation, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-1378.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Decided Jan. 31, 2006.
164 Fed. Appx. 395
Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
Christine Witthohn appeals from the district court‘s order dismissing her complaint under
In 2002, Christine Witthohn filed suit against EZNET in West Virginia state court, alleging that EZNET had breached certain contractual obligations in connection with the creation and development of Witthohn‘s website. In June 2003, the parties reached a settlement. Pursuant to the settlement, Witthohn executed a “Settlement Agreement and Release” wherein she specifically released “any and all claims that were or could have been asserted” against EZNET and its “insurers and adjusters.”
Thereafter, Witthohn filed a motion to amend her complaint to assert claims against Appellees, EZNET‘s insurers, for violations of the West Virginia Unfair Trade Practices Act (“UTPA“) related to their handling of Witthohn‘s suit against EZNET. The state court denied the motion, determining that any amendment of the complaint would be a “fruitless act” because Witthohn had released any claim it might have against Appellees in the settlement agreement. Witthohn‘s appeal was denied.
Witthohn then filed the instant action against Appellees in West Virginia state court, again raising UTPA claims. Appellees removed the case to federal court and filed a motion to dismiss under
This court reviews a dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo. Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir.1993). Dismissal under
However, there are exceptions to the rule that a court may not consider any documents outside of the complaint. Specifically, a court may consider official public records, documents central to plaintiff‘s claim, and documents sufficiently referred to in the complaint so long as the authenticity of these documents is not disputed.
Witthohn marshalls no plausible argument that the state court records should not have been reviewed on a motion to dismiss. A district court may clearly take judicial notice of these public records, and Witthohn does not dispute their authenticity. See Blue Tree Hotels v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts, 369 F.3d 212, 217 (2d Cir.2004) (stating that courts “may also look to public records, including complaints filed in state court, in deciding a motion to dismiss“). Consideration of the settlement agreement is a closer question, since it does not appear to have been filed in the state court action and Witthohn does not explicitly mention it in her complaint.1 However, as discussed below, the fact that Witthohn‘s complaint is barred by res judicata is evident from review of the state court documents, even without consideration of the settlement agreement. Thus, the issue of the propriety of the review of the settlement agreement need not be resolved, and the court‘s consideration of the prior judicial record did not convert Appellees’ motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.
A lawsuit is barred by res judicata when three elements have been satisfied: (1) there was a prior final adjudication on the merits; (2) the two actions involve either the same parties or persons in privity with those parties, and (3) the cause of action identified for resolution in the subsequent proceedings either is identical to the cause of action in the first proceeding or is such that it could have been resolved in the prior action, had it been presented. Slider v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 210 W.Va. 476, 557 S.E.2d 883, 887 (2001).2 Witthohn does not dispute that the first two elements are satisfied; however, she claims that her UTPA claims raised in the present action are substantially different than her claims against EZNET and could not have been brought in that action.
We conclude that Witthohn is focusing on the wrong issue. The issue is not whether the evidence required to prove Witthohn‘s claims against EZNET is substantially different than that required to prove her claims against the Appellees. Instead, the question is whether the current claim is substantially different from the claim sought to be raised against Appellees in Witthohn‘s motion to amend in state court. That question is easily resolved, because Witthohn does not dispute that her current complaint and her motion to amend raise the same cause of action.
The denial of a motion to amend a complaint in one action is a final judgment on the merits barring the same complaint in a later action. Professional Mgmt. Assocs. v. KPMG, 345 F.3d 1030, 1032 (8th Cir. 2003). Thus, denial of leave to amend
Thus, we affirm the district court‘s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED