Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02643/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02643-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition to Quiet Title

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Frank Steed, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

BankUnited, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-02643-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On December 11, 2012, Plaintiff Frank Steed filed an action to quiet title to real 

property located at 1823 West Maddock Road, Phoenix, Arizona, 85086. Doc. 1. 

Defendant BankUnited filed a motion to dismiss on January 7, 2013. Doc. 3. Plaintiff 

has failed to respond to the motion to dismiss despite the Court’s warning that such a 

failure could lead to dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(b). The Court has 

considered the substance of the motion to dismiss and determined that Plaintiff’s suit is 

barred by res judicata and should be dismissed with prejudice. 

 On August 18, 2009, Plaintiff and his wife filed a state court action against 

BankUnited and another defendant in Maricopa County Superior Court (Case No. 

CV2009-053727) claiming breach of contract, tortious interference with the use and 

enjoyment of property, and wrongful foreclosure. Doc. 3-1 at 49-59. Though no claim 

was made to quiet title, the suit challenged the legitimacy of the deed of trust and 

Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the trustee’s sale. Doc. 3-1 at 49-59. In December 2010, the 

parties entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the suit and BankUnited filed a 

notice of settlement. Doc. 3-1 at 85. As part of the agreement, Plaintiff was required to 

Case 2:12-cv-02643-DGC Document 8 Filed 02/28/13 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

dismiss the suit. When he failed to do so, BankUnited filed a motion to enforce the 

settlement agreement and dismiss the state court action with prejudice. Doc. 3-1 at 97-

101. A hearing was held at which both parties presented oral argument on the motion to 

enforce the settlement agreement. Doc. 3-1 at 126. The superior court issued an order on 

August 6, 2012, granting BankUnited’s motion to enforce the settlement agreement and 

dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice. Doc. 3-1 at 132. BankUnited argues that 

the state court judgment precludes Plaintiff from bringing this action. 

 Federal courts must give the same preclusive effect to a state court judgment that 

the state would give to its own judgments. Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. Of Educ., 

465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984). In Arizona, res judicata or claim preclusion requires that 

between both suits there be (1) identity of claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits in the 

previous litigation, and (3) identity or privity between parties. In re Gen. Adjudication of 

All Rights to Use Water in Gila River Sys. & Source, 127 P.3d 882, 887-88 (2006). 

 Plaintiff’s suits in state and federal court satisfy all three elements. Though the 

two claims are not styled with identical captions (the state court suit was not an action to 

“quiet title”), both suits contest the enforceability of the deed of trust and employ many 

of the same legal theories. See Doc 1 at ¶¶ 16-20; Doc. 3-1 at 53-55. Different labels on 

claims that argue the same subject matter are not sufficiently different to avoid res 

judicata. MacRae v. Betts, 14 P.2d 253, 255 (1932). The state court’s dismissal was not 

based on jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join, and therefore it was on the 

merits in satisfaction of the second element. Ariz R. Civ. P. 41(b). Finally, Plaintiff and 

BankUnited are parties in both actions. 

 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 3) is granted.

Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) is dismissed with prejudice. The Rule 16 Case 

Management conference set for February 28, 2013 at 4:30 p.m. is vacated. 

 Dated this 28th day of February, 2013. 

Case 2:12-cv-02643-DGC Document 8 Filed 02/28/13 Page 2 of 2