Crooked Creek Properties, Inc v. Richard Ensley, et al


Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Crooked Creek Properties, Inc.. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link

Download PDF
Case: 17-10958 Date Filed: 09/01/2017 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 17-10958 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:16-cv-00905-WKW-TFM CROOKED CREEK PROPERTIES, INC., a Nevada corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus RICHARD ENSLEY and ANITA LILES, Defendants-Appellees. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama ________________________ (September 1, 2017) Before MARCUS, ROSENBAUM, and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 17-10958 Date Filed: 09/01/2017 Page: 2 of 3 For the fourth time now, we find ourselves reviewing claims asserted by Appellant Crooked Creek Properties, Inc., concerning its purported ownership of the Danya Park Apartments in Autauga County, Alabama. 1 This time, Crooked Creek appeals from the district court’s order dismissing its nine-count complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The district court found that Crooked Creek’s claims were foreclosed by the doctrine of res judicata because the claims had already been adjudicated by the Autauga County Circuit Court in 2006.2 We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Roberts v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 146 F.3d 1305, 1307 (11th Cir.1998). A district court’s application of res judicata is also reviewed de novo. Kizzire v. Baptist Health Sys., Inc., 441 F.3d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir. 2006). On appeal, Crooked Creek argues that, as the fee-simple absolute owner of the Danya Park Apartments, it has standing to maintain this action and cannot be 1 This Court has addressed substantially the same facts at issue here in three prior appeals. See Crooked Creek Properties, Inc. v. Ensley, No. 2:08-CV-1002-WKW, 2009 WL 3644835 (M.D. Ala. Oct. 28, 2009), aff’d, 380 F. App’x 914 (11th Cir. 2010) (“Crooked Creek I”); Crooked Creek Properties, Inc. v. Hutchinson, No. 2:09-CV-1104-WKW, 2010 WL 3629818 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 10, 2010), aff’d, 432 F. App’x 948 (11th Cir. 2011) (“Crooked Creek II”); Crooked Creek Properties, Inc. v. Ensley, No. 2:14-CV-912-WKW, 2015 WL 12940177, at *2 n.3 (M.D. Ala. Apr. 7, 2015), aff’d, 660 F. App’x 719 (11th Cir. 2016) (“Crooked Creek III”). 2 The district court also granted Appellees’ motion for sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enjoining Crooked Creek from filing any future actions relating to the ownership of the Danya Park Apartments without first seeking leave of the district court. Since Crooked Creek has not appealed the district court’s decision to award Rule 11 sanctions in favor of the Appellees, it is deemed to have abandoned any challenge on that ground. Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014). 2 Case: 17-10958 Date Filed: 09/01/2017 Page: 3 of 3 bound by any court orders involving Willadean Walden because Walden is not Crooked Creek’s predecessor. Crooked Creek’s arguments about the chain of title to the Danya Park Apartments must fail because Crooked Creek itself has previously acknowledged that it is Walden’s successor-in-interest to her ownership interest in the Danya Park Apartments. See Crooked Creek I. Because Walden has already fully litigated the issues Crooked Creek attempts to raise here,3 we agree with the well-reasoned decision of the district court that Crooked Creek’s claims are foreclosed by the doctrine of res judicata. AFFIRMED. 3 See, e.g., Walden v. Hutchinson, 987 So. 2d 1109 (Ala. 2007); Walden v. ES Capital, LLC, 89 So. 3d 90 (Ala. 2011). 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?