Jarmuth v. South Carolina, State of et al

Filing 61

ORDER. It is not entirely clear from the record presented whether the retaliation claim raised here was "available" to Plaintiff in the previous state actions. Therefore, within ten days of the date of this order, the parties are directed to provide additional argument and court records, if applicable, addressing this issue. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 01/10/2017. (dsto, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
RONALD JARMUTH,
Plaintiff,
-vs-

THE INTERNATIONAL CLUB
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC,
Defendant.
___________________________________

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.: 4:16-cv-0242-RBH-TER

ORDER

In its Motion to Dismiss (Document # 45), Defendant has raised the affirmative defense of res
judicata to Plaintiff's claims in this action. In determining whether res judicata applies, the court looks not
just to the claims asserted in an earlier lawsuit, but to all claims that could have been brought. Nevada v.
United States, 463 U.S. 110, 129–30, 103 S.Ct. 2906, 77 L.Ed.2d 509 (1983). To preclude claims not
brought earlier, the court need only determine that they were “available” to the plaintiff in the first action.
See generally Ohio Valley Envtl. Coal. v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 210–11 (4th Cir.2009).1
Plaintiff’s retaliation claim here arises in part from a counterclaim or counterclaims raised by Defendant in
the previous state actions seeking attorney’s fees and a fine. It is not entirely clear from the record presented
whether the retaliation claim raised here was “available” to Plaintiff in the previous state actions. Therefore,
within ten days of the date of this order, the parties are directed to provide additional argument and court
records, if applicable, addressing this issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
January 10, 2017
Florence, South Carolina
1

The Fourth Circuit noted the issue here but declined to address it. Clodfelter v. Republic
of Sudan, 720 F.3d 199, 210–11 (4th Cir.2013); but see Taylor v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 86
F.Supp.3d 448, 460-61 (M.D.N.C. 2015).