Mills v. SunTrust Banks, Inc.

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 3/4/2019. (cm 03/04/2019 - jf3s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division

LAWRENCE MILLS,

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

Case No.: GJH-18-743
*

SUNTRUST BANKS, INC.,
*
Defendant.
*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION
In July 2015, Defendant SunTrust Banks, Inc. (“SunTrust”) seized $2,757.17 of Plaintiff
Lawrence Mills’ assets. ECF No. 2 ¶ 6.1 In response, Plaintiff brought a successful replevin
action in Montgomery County District Court in which SunTrust agreed to a consent judgment in
which it would release the seized assets. Id. ¶ 9. In January 2018, Plaintiff filed a second lawsuit
in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland alleging that this seizure violated the
Maryland Consumer Protection Act and Article 4 of the Maryland Commercial Code, and
constituted conversion, breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He
seeks $20,000 in compensatory damages, $500,000 in punitive damages, and $3,000 in
attorney’s fees. Id. ¶ 40. Defendant removed the action to this Court on March 12, 2018 and filed
a Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 12. No hearing is necessary. See Loc. Rule 105.6. Because
Plaintiff’s suit is barred by res judicata, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted.

1

Unless otherwise stated, the background facts are taken from Plaintiff’s Complaint, ECF No. 2, and are presumed
to be true.

1

I.

DISCUSSION
The Fourth Circuit has held that “an affirmative defense such as res judicata may be

raised under Rule 12(b)(6) ‘only if it clearly appears on the face of the complaint.’” Andrews v.
Daw, 201 F.3d 521, 524 (4th Cir. 2000) (quoting Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R.R.
Co. v. Forst, 4 F.3d 244, 250 (4th Cir. 1993). Furthermore, “when entertaining a motion to
dismiss on the ground of res judicata, a court may take judicial notice of facts from a prior
judicial proceeding when the res judicata defense raises no disputed issue of fact.” Id. Plaintiff
has not objected to the inclusion of records from the state court proceedings, and raises no
dispute of fact. Therefore, the Court’s consideration of Defendant’s res judicata defense is
appropriate at this time.
Res judicata bars a party from relitigating a claim that was decided or could have been
decided in a prior suit. Laurel Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Wilson, 519 F.3d 156, 161 (4th Cir. 2008).
The doctrine is generally governed by the law of the state in which the judgment was rendered.
Id. at 162. In Maryland, the elements of res judicata are:
(1) that the parties in the present litigation are the same or in privity with the
parties in the earlier dispute; (2) that the claim presented in the current action is
identical to the one determined in the prior adjudication; and (3) that there has
been a final judgment on the merits.
Id. For purposes of the second element, a claim is identical if it could have been litigated in the
prior adjudication. Powell v. Breslin, 430 Md. 52, 64 (Md. 2013) (Res judicata renders the final
judgment in the first case conclusive “as to ‘all matters which with propriety could have been
litigated in the first suit’”) (quoting Alvey v. Alvey, 225 Md. 386, 390 (Md. 1961)).
Here, all three elements are satisfied. First, Plaintiff does not dispute that SunTrust Bank,
the defendant in the original replevin action, is a wholly owned subsidiary of SunTrust Bank,
Inc. See ECF No. 12-1 at 6. A corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary are in privity for
2

purposes of res judicata. See, e.g., Whitehead v. Viacom, 233 F. Supp. 2d 715, 721 (D. Md.
2002).
Second, nothing would have prevented Plaintiff from bringing these precise claims
against SunTrust Bank in the first action. Plaintiff has discovered no new factual information
about SunTrust’s allegedly tortious behavior and suffered no new injury. Plaintiff asserts that
other causes of action cannot be brought alongside a replevin action, but that is not so. See, e.g.,
Mathis v. Hargrove, 166 Md. App. 286, 294-95 (Md. 2005) (bringing replevin, trespass,
conversion, breach of contract, and other state law claims). Plaintiff offers no explanation for his
failure to bring his new claims in the original action, and cites no authority supporting the
proposition that he was barred from doing so; therefore, the second element of res judicata is
met.
Finally, there is no dispute that the District Court of Maryland for Montgomery County
issued a final judgment on the merits in the original action. See ECF No. 12-3 at 2 (entering
judgment in favor of Plaintiff). Because all three requirements for res judicata are met, Plaintiff
is barred from bringing new claims against SunTrust Bank, Inc. based on the same seizure of
funds as the earlier action.
II.

CONCLUSION
Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 12, is granted. A separate Order shall issue.

Date: March 4, 2019

/s/__________________________
GEORGE J. HAZEL
United States District Judge

3