Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-19-13825/USCOURTS-ca11-19-13825-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Timothy B. Brown
Appellant
U.S. Bank National Association
Appellee
Wells Fargo Bank N.A.
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 19-13825

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:19-cv-00001-TCB

TIMOTHY B. BROWN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOC.,

as trustee for As Trustee, Mastr Asset Backed Securities Trust 2006-AB1, 

Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AB1,

WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., 

 Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(April 15, 2020)

USCA11 Case: 19-13825 Date Filed: 04/15/2020 Page: 1 of 3
2

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Timothy Brown appeals pro se the dismissal of his complaint against U.S. 

Bank National Association and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Brown complained of 

negligence by Wells Fargo in implementing the Home Affordable Modification

Program and refusing to modify Brown’s mortgage payments; of a wrongful 

foreclosure by Wells Fargo and by U.S. Bank; of conversion by both banks; and of 

violations of the Georgia Consumer Fraud Act by both banks. The district court 

dismissed Brown’s complaint as barred by res judicata and, in the alternative, for

failure to state a claim for relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We affirm.

The district court correctly dismissed Brown’s complaint as barred by res 

judicata. “Res judicata, or more properly claim preclusion, is a judicially made 

doctrine with the purpose of both giving finality to parties who have already 

litigated a claim and promoting judicial economy; it bars claims that could have 

been litigated as well.” In re Atlanta Retail, Inc., 456 F.3d 1277, 1284 (11th Cir. 

2006). The doctrine applies if “(1) there is a final judgment on the merits; (2) the 

decision was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the parties, or those 

in privity with them, are identical in both suits; and (4) the same cause of action is 

involved in both cases.” Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 193 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th 

Cir. 1999). Brown does not dispute that his present action and an action he filed in 

USCA11 Case: 19-13825 Date Filed: 04/15/2020 Page: 2 of 3
3

2017 against Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank involve the same parties. The two actions

are based on the same factual predicate: the alleged wrongful foreclosure and sale 

of his property. Brown complained previously of breach of contract, a wrongful 

foreclosure on his property, and of violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices 

Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and the district court dismissed 

the complaint for failure to state a claim, which “unambiguously constitutes a 

ruling on the merits.” Borden v. Allen, 646 F.3d 785, 812 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal 

quotation marks omitted). In his new complaint, Brown alleges, for the first time, a 

claim of negligence for failing to modify his loan payments, but that claim is 

“based upon the same factual predicate . . . as [his] former action, [so] the two 

cases are really the same claim or cause of action for purposes of res judicata,” 

Citibank, N.A. v. Data Leasing Fin. Corp., 904 F.2d 1498, 1503 (11th Cir. 1990).

Brown’s new legal theory is rooted in the actions Wells Fargo took leading up to 

and during foreclosure. See Jaffree v. Wallace, 837 F.2d 1461, 1468 (11th Cir. 

1988) (“Res judicata . . . extends not only to the precise legal theory presented in 

the previous litigation, but to all legal theories and claims arising out of the same 

operative nucleus of fact.”).

We AFFIRM the dismissal of Brown’s complaint.

USCA11 Case: 19-13825 Date Filed: 04/15/2020 Page: 3 of 3