Franco-Rivera et al v. FirstBank
Filing
19
OPINION & ORDER granting 9 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Salvador E. Casellas on 12/12/11. (PR)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
JOSE R. FRANCO-RIVERA, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v.
Civil No. 11-1414 (SEC)
FIRSTBANK d/b/a Firstbank Puerto Rico
Defendant.
OPINION and ORDER
Before the Court are defendant’ (“Defendant”) motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6) (Docket # 9), and plaintiffs’ (“Plaintiffs”) opposition thereto (Docket # 18). After
reviewing the record and the applicable law, Defendant’s motion is GRANTED.
Background
After a four-year long foreclosure litigation in state court, on the verge of an imminent
ejection, Plaintiffs filed this suit seeking redress for damages allegedly suffered during the
state proceedings. Docket # 2. Although Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to explicitly state the legal
predicate under which it arises, the factual allegations are uncomplicated. In fact, the
following remarks from Plaintiffs’ complaint neatly capture the essence of their factual
allegations:
The defendant Bank, by its official legal representation in Civil Case
number ECD2007-0432 filed in the Superior Court of Puerto Rico,
Caguas Part, entered and followed a premeditated and conscientious
incommunication [sic] scheme to prevent and disallow the herein
plaintiff, therein defendant, to exercise, to his sole discretion, those
measures and efforts to save his proprietary interest in the
aforementioned property, be it by seeking financing with another Bank,
obtaining a loan from other sources, renting the property with a purchase
option, bartering, selling it or even filing for Bankruptcy relief.
Docket # 2, ¶ 26.
After preliminary procedural nuances, Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on
res judicata grounds, among other things. Docket # 9. To support their motion, Defendant has
2
provided the Court with record entries of the foreclosure proceedings showing that the state
court rejected, after a hearing, the same allegations now pending before this Court. Docket
# 14. Defendant has also supplemented the record with copies of notifications issued by the
Puerto Rico Court of Appeals and the Puerto Rico Supreme Court denying certiorari and
reconsideration petitions Plaintiffs filed in each of those forums challenging the state court
decision. Id. Plaintiffs, however, oppose these contentions, arguing that res judicata is
inapplicable to this case. Docket # 18.
Standard of Review
A motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6) premised on an affirmative defense such as
res judicata may be appropriate if “the facts that establish the defense . . . [are] definitively
ascertainable from the allegations of the complaint, the documents (if any) incorporated
therein, matters of public record, and other matters of which the court may take judicial
notice.” In re Colonial Mortgage Bankers Corp., 324 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 2003). Moreover,
“the facts so gleaned must conclusively establish the affirmative defense.” Id.
Applicable Law and Analysis
Under the federal doctrine of res judicata, also referred to as claim preclusion, a valid
and final judgment is conclusive of a claim. If the judgment is for the plaintiff, the claim is
extinguished and merged in the judgment; if the judgment is for the defendant, the plaintiff
is barred from reasserting the claim. Restatement of Judgments 2d § 17 (1980). Res judicata
applies “not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the
claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for
that purpose.” Cromwell v. Sac County, 94 U.S. 351, 352 (1877); see also Blonder-Tongue
Laboratories, Inc., v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313, 329 (1971); Parklane
Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979). In addition, “[o]nce there has been an
adjudication on the merits . . . all claims which are ‘part of the same cause of action’ are
extinguished, whether or not actually asserted in the original action.” Kale v. Combined Ins.
Co. of America, 924 F.2d 1161, 1164 (1st Cir. 1991). As a consequence of that doctrine,
3
“when a plaintiff pleads a claim in federal court, he must, to avoid the onus of claim-splitting,
bring all related ... claims in the same lawsuit so long as any suitable basis for subject matter
jurisdiction exists.” Id. at 1165.
The policy behind the doctrine of res judicata, is “to relieve [the] parties of the cost
and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing
inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication.” Apparel Art Intern. v. Amertex
Enters. Ltd., 48 F.3d 576, 583 (1st Cir. 1995). The doctrine is “no mere matter of practice
or procedure, but a rule of fundamental and substantial justice, of public policy and of private
peace, which should be cordially regarded and enforced by the courts.” Kale, 924 F.2d at
1168 (internal quotations marks omitted). Therefore, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has
mandated a steadfast adherence to the doctrine. Id. (“Any idiosyncratic unfairness that may
result from the consistent and straightforward application of preclusion principles is . . . far
outweighed by the systemic benefits which flow from steadfast adherence to so salutary a
doctrine.”). In fact, although the First Circuit has recognized that an occasional exception to
the rule may exist in order to prevent “unusual hardship,” it has yet to find a specific instance
where it would apply. Id.; see also Rose v. Town of Harwich, 778 F.2d 77, 82 (1st Cir. 1985)
(“If, as the Restatement suggests, there may nonetheless be an occasional exception to
prevent unusual hardship, this case does not fall within it. This is not a case in which the
plaintiff has ‘clearly and convincingly shown that the policies favoring preclusion of a
second action are overcome for an extraordinary reason.’”) (citations omitted).
Three elements are required to establish res judicata: (1) that there is a final judgment
on the merits in a prior action; (2) that the parties in the prior and the subsequent action are
sufficiently identical; and (3) that the causes of action in the two cases are sufficiently
identical. Breneman v. U.S. ex rel. F.A.A., 381 F.3d 33, 38 (1st Cir. 2004).
In this case, Defendant’s contentions are correct. A cursory review of the record
shows that all the elements of the res judicata doctrine concur in this case—i.e., the same
parties litigated the same claims in a prior proceeding that resulted in a final judgment on the
4
merits. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, this case is DISMISSED with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 12th day of December, 2011.
s/ Salvador E. Casellas
SALVADOR E. CASELLAS
U.S. Senior District Judge
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?