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

Filing

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 http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

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[DO NOT PUBLISH]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