NO. 07-07 -003 9-CV IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D OC TOBER15, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ JOH NN YR OD RI GU EZ, JR ., Appel lan t

v. IC ON BEN EFI T ADM IN ISTRATORS, IN C. , Appel lee

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE COU NT Y COUR T AT LAW NO. 3 O F L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO. 200 6-59 8,6 48; HON. PAULA LA NEHART , PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Opinion

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. John ny Rodriguez, Jr ., ap pea ls from a f inal sum ma ry judgment favoring Icon Be nef it Adm inistrato rs, Inc. His tw o issues involv e the a pplicat ion of res judicat a and due process. Since our resolutio n of

the forme r disposes o f the ap pea l, w e turn to tha t issue and af f irm the j udg ment.S om m ers r el i ed o n t he Supr em e Cour t deci si on i n S e g re s t v . S e g re s t, 649 S. W
. 2d 6 10, 612 ( T ex. 1 1983) , wher ei n t he co ur t st at ed t hat “ [ a] f i nal j udgm ent set t l es no t onl yi ssues a ct ual l yl i t i gat ed, butal so an y i ssues t hat coul d ha v e be en l i t i gat ed. T hat t he j udgm ent m ayhav e bee n wr ong orpr em i sed o n a l egal pri nc i pl e s ub s eq ue ntl yove rr ul ed do es no t affec t ap pl i c ati on of re s j u d ic a ta
. ” Id
. at612
. 2 This appeal is the secon d inv olv ing these pa rt ies and the u nder ly ing di sput e. The firs t i nv olved th e tr ial co u rt’s j udg ment enforci ng a medi ati on ag re ement an d di smi ss ing Rod ri g uez ’ cl aims ag ain st Ico n “ w it h preju dic e.” Thoug h R odr ig uezappeal ed, h e di d not c o n t e s tt h e in c lu s io n o f t h e p h ra s e “wi t h p reju d ic e ” i n t h e d e c re e . Fu rt h e rm o re , we affi r me d th e orde r . Th erea fte r , he fi l ed th e s ui t from w hi c h th i s a pp ea l a ros e. Th e c l ai ms inc lud ed ca u se s o f acti on prev iou sl y al leg ed as w ell as new ones . In respon se, Ic on mov ed for summar

y j udg ment on the aff ir mati v e defense of re s judi cat a. That motion was g ra nted. As prev iou sl y

menti oned, the t ri al cour t di smi ss ed th e first sui t betw een t he par ti es “w it h preju d i c e . ” M o re o v e r , n o o n e a s k e d e i t h e r t h e t r i a l o r a p p e l l a t e c o u rt t o re d a ctthe latter phrase from the decree. Thus, the d eter minat ion bec ame final for p ur poses of a p p lyi ng the doct ri ne of res jud ic ata. Labr ie v. Kenney, 95 S. W .3d 722 , 728 -29 (Te x. A p p . –A m a ri ll o 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t
. ). T h is is t ru e e ve n t h o u g h t h e t ri a l c o u rtsh o u ld n o th a ve dism issed the cause “w ith prejud ice.” Id.;Som m er s v . C oncep ci

on , 2 0 S
. W
. 3 d 2 7 , 4 0 (T e x. App .–Hou ston [14 Dist.] 2000 , petden ied). Consequen tly, t h e t ri a l court did not err in th 1 g ra nti ng su mmary

j udg ment on Ico n’s aff ir mati v e defense. T h e re a re opi nio ns sug g est ing thatthe v er bia g e us ed i n the j udg ment ( i. e. w it h preju dic e) i s ir re lev ant if it nonethe les s appears that the caus e w as tr uly not an adj udi cat ion of the meri ts. E.g. , Stubbs v. Patter son Den tal

Labor ator ies, 5 7 3 S
. W
. 2 d 2 7 4 (T e x. Ci v. App.–E ast lan d 1978, no w ri t) and Hal iburton v

. Riley, 5 8 9 S
. W
. 2 d 8 2 1 (T e x. Ci v.3

App.–W aco 1979, no w ri t)
. Howev er , t hose opi nio ns hav e been seldo m ci ted b y othe r cour ts. They also confli ct w it h Lab rie , Somm ers , and the Supreme C our t aut hor ity

on w hic h the l atter

reli ed. Acc ordin g ly , t he s ummary j udg ment i s a ff ir med.

Per C ur iam