CARTER v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING INC LLC 2005 FR3 2005 FR3 (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.2021-08-23No. No. 20-11472

Summary · law.co

Holding. The appellate court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Carter's complaint, finding that res judicata barred the claims because they arose from identical events previously adjudicated between the same parties.

Tawana Carter, representing herself, challenged the dismissal of her lawsuit against Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank. The district court had dismissed her complaint on the ground that res judicata—the legal principle preventing relitigation of the same claims—barred the action. Carter raised several arguments on appeal, including that she should have been allowed to amend her complaint, that state law claims should have been remanded to state court, and that the court should have considered COVID-19's impact on her access to legal resources.

The appellate court found it unnecessary to address Carter's additional arguments because res judicata clearly applied to her case. Under Georgia law, res judicata bars claims when there has been a final judgment on the merits in a prior case between the same parties involving the same subject matter or arising from the same operative facts. The court determined that all four elements of res judicata were satisfied: two prior final judgments existed regarding Carter's claims; the court that issued them had proper jurisdiction; the parties in both the prior and current cases were identical; and all claims in the current case stemmed from the same events—Carter's requests for loan modification—that had been addressed in the earlier suits.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether res judicata bars claims arising from prior final judgments between identical parties
Whether a res judicata defense may be resolved at the motion to dismiss stage based on the complaint's face
Whether procedural defenses such as denial of leave to amend warrant consideration when res judicata applies

Procedural posture

Carter appealed the district court's dismissal of her complaint as barred by res judicata, raising additional arguments regarding amendment, remand, and COVID-19-related hardship.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

Tawana Carter, proceeding pro se, appeals the District Courts dismissal of her complaint as barred by res judicata. See Carter v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. 1:19-CV-4863-MHC-JSA, 2020 WL 9594360 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 16, 2020). She also argues that the District Court should have allowed her leave to amend, should have remanded the state law claims back to state court upon resolution of the federal claims rather than dismiss the case, and should have considered the effects of COVID-19 on her ability to access legal resources before dismissing the case. Because we hold that res judicata bars the present action, we need not address the other grounds Carter raised.

Federal courts apply state law to determine whether res judicata applies. N.A.A.C.P. v. Hunt, 891 F.2d 1555, 1560 (11th Cir. 1990). Georgia requires the following elements to establish res judicata: 1) there is a final judgment on the merits in the first cause of action; 2) a court of competent jurisdiction rendered the first decision; 3) the parties to both actions, or those in privity with them, are identical; and 4) the causes of action in both suits are identical, or the claims asserted in both suits arise out of the same events or the same nucleus of operative facts. See Laskar v. Peterson, 771 F.3d 1291, 1300 (11th Cir. 2014); James v. Intown Ventures, LLC, 290 Ga. 813, 816, 725 S.E.2d 213, 215 (2012). Res judicata applies to all claims arising out of the same transactions or events that were raised or could have been raised in the prior suit. See OConnor v. PCA Family Health Plan, Inc., 200 F.3d 1349, 1355 (11th Cir. 2000). And a court may consider a res judicata defense at the motion to dismiss stage when the face of the complaint indicates the existence of the defense. Starship Enter. of Atlanta, Inc. v. Coweta Cnty., 708 F.3d 1243, 1252 n.13 (11th Cir. 2013).

In this case, it is clear from the face of the complaint that res judicata applies to Carters claims. First, there are two previous final judgments on the merits based on Carters claims. See Carter v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., No. 1:15-CV-410-MHC-JSA, 2015 WL 13777335 (N.D. Ga Dec. 23, 2015); Carter v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc., 1:18-CV-3608-MHC, 2018 WL 5262058 (N.D. Ga. Sept. 20, 2018). Second, those decisions were issued by a court of competent jurisdiction. Third, the parties in those cases are the same as the parties in this case, with Carter as the plaintiff and Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. as the defendants. Fourth, the claims in the present case arise from the exact same events as in the previous cases, all related to Carters requests for a loan modification for her home. Thus, Carters claims are barred by res judicata, and we affirm the District Courts dismissal of the case.

AFFIRMED.

PER CURIAM: