A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary1,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT

XI ANGYU AN Z HU,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. S T. F RANCI S HEALT H CENTE R; K E N N E N T H O M P S O N , M .D .,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 06- 3113 ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV - 2 1 3 9 - KHV)

(D . K a n .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e P O R F IL IO , BA LD OCK , and EBEL , C i rcui tJudg es. Pl ai nt i ff X i angyuan Zhu, pr ocee di ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om t he di s tr i ct cour t ’ s di s m i s s al of hercompl ai ntand the i m pos i t i on of s anct i ons i n the form of a tto rn e y s’ fe e s a n d c o sts . M s. Z h u c o n ten d s th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in di s m i s s i ng hercl ai m s on t he bas i s of r es j udi cat a and i n i m pos i ng s anct i ons agai ns ther . W e l ack j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derM s . Z hu’ s chal l enge t o the di s tr i ct- 2-

cour t ’ s deci s i on t o i m pos e s anct i ons beca us e the amounthas noty etbeen d e te rm in e d . See Am er i can Soda, LLP v. U. S. F i l t erWas t ew at erG r oup , Inc. , 428 F. 3d 921, 924 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) . T hi s does notpr ecl ude ourr evi ew of the d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s d is m is s a l o f M s . Z h u ’s c o m p la in t. Id . at925. W e have j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d we AFF I RM . I O n M ay26 , 20 04 , M s. Z hu fi l ed a co m plai nt i n K ansas st at e cou rtagainst fo u r d e fe n d a n ts , in c lu d in g S t. F ra n c is H e a lth C e n te r a n d D r. K e n n e n T h o m p s o n . T h e o th e r t w o d e fe n d a n ts a n d S t. F ra n c is m o v e d fo r j u d g m e n t o n th e p le a d in g s . T he compl ai ntagai ns tSt . Fr anci s w as di s m i s s ed w i th pr ej udi ce on O ct ober22, 2 0 0 4 . See A pl ee. Supp. A pp. at202. D r . T hom ps on m oved forpart i al j udgm ent on t he pl eadi ngs and fora more defi ni t e s t at ementon M s . Z hu’ s m edi cal m al pr act i ce c l ai m . A l l cl ai m s agai ns tD r . T hom ps on, exce ptforthe medi cal m a lp ra c tic e c la im , w e re d is m is s e d w ith p reju d ic e o n O c to b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 . S e e id . at 203. M s . Z hu w as gi ven perm i s s i on t o amend hers t at e courtcompl ai ntand then D r . T hom ps on fi l ed a r enew ed mot i on t o di s m i s s . T he s t at e courtgr ant ed the m ot i on on February24, 2005, t her ebydi s m i s s i ng al l of the cl ai m s agai ns tal l of th e d e fe n d a n ts . See i d. at231. O n A p ri l 11 , 2 0 0 5 , M s. Z h u fil ed a c o m p lai n t i n fe d era l distri ct co u rt agai ns tSt . Fr anci s and D r . T hom ps on. O n M ay12, M s . Z hu fi l ed an a m ended compl ai nt . D efe ndant s m oved t o di s m i s s the amended compl ai ntas barr ed byr esA l t hough M s . Z hu ar gues t hather“V i ct i m and W i tnes s Pr ot ect i on A ct , and 1 1 8 U .S .C . § § 2 4 , 1 3 4 1 c laim s w e re n o t b a rre d a s a m a tter o f re s ju d ica ta,” A p lt. B r . at28, and does notm ent i on herR I C O cl ai m , t hi s s t at ementdoes not accurat el yrefl ectt he clai m s setforth in M s. Z hu ’s fede ral com plai nt. T hese “cl ai m s ” w er e notal l eged s epar at el yi n hercompl ai nt , buti ns t ead w er e al l eged a s p re d ic a te a c ts a s p a rt o f h e r R IC O c la im . See A plt . A pp . at25 ¶52 . B ecause M s . Z h u i s p r o c e e d i n g p r o s e , a n d w e m u s tt h e r e fo r e c o n s tru e h e rfi l i n g s l i b e r a l l y, s ee Hal lv. B el lm on , 935 F. 2d 1106, 1110 ( 10th C i r . 1991) , w e cons true her a rg u m e n t a s a c h a lle n g e to th e d is m is s a l o f h e r R IC O c la im .

- 3- j udi cat a bec aus e of M s . Z hu’ s pr i ors t at e courtact i on. T hatm ot i on w as gr ant ed i n a mem or andum and or derent er ed on February6, 2006. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. II W e re v iew d e n o v o th e d istric t co u rt’s d ism iss a l o f a c o m p lain t o n th e b a sis o f re s ju d ic a ta . See P l otner v. A T&T C orp . , 2 2 4 F . 3 d 1 1 6 1 , 1 1 6 8 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). M s. Z h u ’s fe d e ra l co m p lain t as se rte d e ig h t cla im s: o n e fe d e ra l cla im u n d e rt h e Ra c k e t e e rI n fl u e n c e d a n d Co rru p tOr g a n i z a t i o n s Ac t( RI CO) , 1 8 U. S . C. § 1961 ets eq. , and s even s t at e l aw cl ai m s . M s . Z hu’ s chal l enge on appeal r el at es s o l e l y t o t h e d i s mi s s a l o f h e r RI CO c l a i m. See A p l t . B r . a t1 9 - 2 8 . A c c o r d i n g l y, 1 she has w ai ved anyotheri ssues r egardi ng the d i sm i ssal of h er s even st at e cl ai m s. See Stat e Farm F i r e & C as . C o. v. Mhoon , 3 1 F .3 d 9 7 9 , 9 8 4 n .7 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). I n or dert o det erm i ne w hethert he di s tr i ctcourtpr oper l yappl i ed r es j udi cat a t o barM s . Z hu’ s R I C O cl ai m , w e mustfi r s tdet erm i ne w hatpr ecl us i ve e ffe c t K a n s a s w o u ld g iv e to M s . Z h u ’s s ta te c o u rt c o m p la in t. See Migr a v. War r en C i t

y Sch. D is t . B d. of

E duc. , 465 U . S. 75, 81 ( 1984) ( “I ti s now s et t l ed- 4-

t hata fe der al cour tm us tgi ve t o a s t at e- courtj udgm entthe s ame pr ecl us i ve effec t as w oul d be gi ven thatj udgm entunderthe l aw of the St at e i n w hi ch the j udgm ent w a s re n d e re d .”). U n d e r K a n sa s la w , “[ r]e s ju d ica ta ( c laim p re c lu sio n ) p re v e n ts r el i t i gat i on of pr evi ous l yl i t i gat ed cl ai m s and cons i s t [s ] of the fol l ow i ng four el ement s : ( 1) s ame cl ai m ; ( 2) s ame par t i es ; ( 3) cl ai m s w er e orcoul d have be en r ai s ed; and ( 4) a fi nal j udgm enton the mer i t s . ” Win s to n v . S ta te D e p ’to f S o c . & R eha b. Servs. , 49 P. 3d 1274, 1285 ( K an. 2002) . O nl ythe thi r d Wi ns t on fa c to r is ati s s ue i n t hi s appea l . W e conc l ude, as di s cus s ed bel ow , thatK ans as w oul d gi ve p re c lu s iv e e ffe c t to M s . Z h u ’s s ta te a c tio n a n d th e re fo re w e m u s t d o th e s a m e . See Migra , 465 U . S. at81. M s. Z h u c o n ten d s th a t h e r R IC O c laim sh o u ld n o t b e b a rre d b yre s ju d ica ta b e c a u se it i s a n e w c laim th a t w a s n o t ra ise d in h e r sta te c o u rt c o m p lain t. W h ile w e a g re e th a t M s. Z h u d id n o t b rin g a R IC O c laim in h e r sta te c o u rt a c tio n , tha t is no tt he d i sposi t i ve co nsi derat i on . “K ansas l aw em ph asi zes that the clai m or cause o f a c tio n is d e fin e d in ter m s o f th e inju ryfo r w h ich re lief is d e m a n d e d , tha t is to s ay , i n t erm s of the f

actualci rcum stan ces of the contr over s yr atherthan the l egal th e o ry o r r e m e d ia l s ta tu te o n w h ic h th e s u it is g ro u n d e d .” C ar t erv. C i t y of E mp o ria , 815 F. 2d 617, 620 ( 10t h C i r . 1987) ( ci t i ng Wel ls v. R oss , 465 P. 2d 966, 9 6 8 (K a n . 1 9 7 0 )) (e m p h a sis a d d e d ); s ee als o G r i f f i th v. St outR em odel i ng, Inc. , 548 P. 2d 1238, 1243 ( K an. 1976) ( “B oth act i ons w er e bot t om ed on the s ame se t of fa ct s and i f ther e w as a fi nal adj udi cat i on upon the mer i t s i n the fi r s t , the- 5-

doctr i ne of r es j udi cat a gene r al l yw oul d appl yi n the s econd. ”) . A l though M s . Zh u ’ s RI CO c l a i m r a i s e s a n e w l e g a l th e o ry , i ti s g r o u n d e d i n th e s a me fac tual ci r cumst ance s as hers t at e ac t i on and coul d have be en br oughtas partof t hatact i on. See Ta

ffl in v . L e v itt , 4 9 3 U .S . 4 5 5 , 4 5 8 (1 9 9 0 ) (h o ld in g th a t sta te co u rt s h av e c o n cu rren t j u ri sd ict ion o v er c ivil R IC O claim s). M o st o f th e fa c tu a l alle g a tio n s in M s. Z h u ’s s tate a n d fe d e ra l co m p lain ts s t em from hert r eatm entr el at i ons hi p w i th D r . T hom ps on, an empl oy ee of S t. F ra n c is . T h a t r e la tio n s h ip s p a n n e d f ro m J a n u a ry 1 9 9 8 to M a rc h 2 0 0 3 . See A pl t . B r . at9. I n herappel l at e br i ef, M s . Z hu i dent i fi es the conduc tfr om her fede r al compl ai ntt hatal l egedl ycons t i tut ed the pr edi cat e ac t s nece s s aryforher R IC O c la im a g a in s t D r. T h o m p s o n a n d S t. F ra n c is . See i d. a t 9 -1 3 . T h e m ajo rity o f th e se a lleg a tio n s a re v irtu a llyid e n tica l to th e a lleg a tio n s in h e r sta te c o m p lain t. C ompa re A pl t . A pp. at10- 18 ¶¶ 11- 12, 14, 19, 24- 26, 28- 30, 32- 37 ( fede r al co m p lai n t) w ith A p lee. Su p p . A p p . at 22 -29 ¶¶ 2 6 -28 , 3 1 , 4 0 -49 (st ate c o m p lai n t) . T he fe der al compl ai ntcont ai ns a fe w new fac tual al l egat i ons ; forexampl e, t hatSt . Fr anci s s enta fr audul entbi l l i ng s t at ementt o M s . Z hu form edi cal s ervi ces t hats he di d notactual l yr ece i ve w hi l e s he w as bei ng tr eat ed byD r . T hom ps on, s ee A pl t . A pp. at13 ¶23. R es j udi cat a mays t i l l be a ba ri n thi s s i tuat i on, how ever , i f the al l egat i ons ar os e outof the s ame t r ans act i on ors er i es of c o n n e c te d tr a n s a c tio n s . See Yapp v. Exce lC or p. , 1 8 6 F . 3 d 1 2 2 2 , 1 2 2 7 (10 th C ir . 1999) ( des cr i bi ng t r ans act i onal appr oach forr es j udi cat a purpos es ) . K ans as- 6-

appea r s t o appr ove of thi s t r ans act i onal appr oach . See P hi l l i ps USA , Inc. v. A l l f l ex USA , Inc. , 77 F. 3d 354, 360- 361 ( 10th C i r . 1996) ( di s cus s i ng K ans as c a se s); se e a lso O ’Ke e fe v. Mer r i l lLynch & C o. , 8 4 P .3 d 6 1 3 , 6 1 8 -6 1 9 (K a n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( a p p lyin g tr a n s a c tio n a l a p p ro a c h ). A nynew al l egat i ons i n M s . Z hu’ s fede r al compl ai ntar os e outof her tr ea tm en t r elati o n sh ip w ith D r. T h o m p so n that w as a fo ca l po int of h er state co u rt compl ai nt . A s t he di s t r i ctcour texpl ai ned i n appl y i ng the tr ans act i onal appr oach t o M s . Z hu’ s fede r al cl ai m s , “pl ai nt i ff’ s theor i es forr el i ef a l l ar i s e fr om D r . T hom ps on’ s t r eatm entof pl ai nt i ff, hi s t es t i m onyr egar di ng thattr eatm ent , t he bi l l i ng fort hatt r eatm entand vague al l egat i ons of cons pi r acybetw een D r . T hom ps on, St . Fr anci s and other s . ” A pl t . A pp. at86. B eca us e the r el evant fa c ts in M s. Z h u ’s fe d e ra l co m p lain t ar e a ll rela ted in tim e , sp a c e a n d o rig in to th e re lev a n t fa c ts in h e r sta te c o m p lain t, th e d istric t co u rt d id n o t er r in concl udi ng t hatt heyar os e outof the s ame t r ans act i on ors er i es of conne ct ed tr a n s a c tio n s a n d th a t M s . Z h u ’s R IC O c la im th e re fo re w a s b a rr e d b yre s ju d ic a ta . See Yapp , 1 8 6 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 7 ; O ’Ke e fe , 8 4 P .3 d a t 6 1 8 -6 1 9 .- 7-

T h e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d istric t co u rt is A F F IR M E D a n d th e c a se is R E M A N D E D t o the di stri ctcou rtfor a fi nal det erm i nati on regar ding at t orney s’ fees and cost s. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt D avi d M . E bel C i r cui tJ udge