The Honorable R. L eon Jordan, United States Distri ct J u d g e for the Easter

n District of * Tenne ssee, sitting by

designation. NO T RE CO M M E ND E D F OR F UL L - T E X T P UB L I CA T I ON

F i l e N am e: 07a0802n. 06 F i l ed: N ovem ber 15, 2007 N o. 06- 4605 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
G E N E R A L M E D IC IN E , P .C ., P laintiff -A p p ell a n t,
v. M O RN I N G V I EW CA RE CE N TER S, D ef endant- A ppel l ee. ON AP P E AL F RO M T HE UN I TED STA TES D I S TRI CT C O U R T FOR TH E S OUT HE RN DI S T RI CT OF O H IO

B E F O R E : B O G G S and K E N N E D Y , C i rcui t Judges; JO R D A N , D i s t ri ct Judge. *

LEO N JO RD A N , D i s t ri ct Judge. G en era l M ed ici n e, P . C
. ap p ea ls th e d i s tr i ct
cour t ’s g ran t o f M or ni ng V i ew C ar e C ent er s ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s . For t he r eas ons t hat f o llo w , w e a f

f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e d istric t co u rt.

I. G ener al M edi ci ne pr ovi des m ed ical st af fin g fo r nu rsi n g h o m es. M o rning V i ew
o w n s a t lea st s e v e n n u rsin g h o m e s in O h io . In Ju n e 1 9 9 8 , the p a rties e n ter e d in to a F a c ili ty M edi cal M anage m entA gr eementw her ebyG ener al M edi ci ne w oul d excl us i vel ypr ovi deGene ra l M e dic ine , P.C. v . M

or ning V ie w Ca reCe nters , No. 06-4605

2 m edi cal s t aff

i ng forM or ni ng V i ew ’ s nur s i ng hom e l ocat ed i n N ew Phi l adel phi a, O hi o. T he N ew P h il ad elph ia a g ree m en t w en t into ef fe ct in M arc h 1 9 9 9
. T h e initi al t erm w as o n e y ea r, aut om at i cal l ycont i nui ng foran i ndefi ni t e number of t hr ee- y ear per i ods unl es s t er m i nat ed by ei t herpar t yi n acc or dance w it h the term s of the agr eement . E ffe ct i ve M ay1, 1999, t he p a rties e x e c u ted su b st a n ti a llyid e n tica l F a c ili tyM e d ica l M a n a g e m e n t A g re e m e n ts f o r six otherM orni ng V i ew nu rs i ng ho m es.

O n A pr i l 17, 2003, G ener al M edi ci ne fi l ed a br eac h of contr actcompl ai nt agai ns tM or ni ng V i ew i n O hi o s t at e court . T hats ui texpr es s l yper t ai ned onl yt o t he N ew P h ila d elph ia fa cil ityan d all eg ed that M o rnin g V iew : ( 1 ) disreg ard ed the c o n tr ac t’ s excl us i vi t ypr ovi s i on; ( 2) al l ow ed phy s i ci ans ons i t e w ho had notbeen c r edent i al ed by G e n e ra l M e d icin e ; (3 ) f a iled to m a k e p a ym e n ts; a n d (4 ) w ro n g f u llyter m in a ted th e c o n tra c t. I n N ovember 2003, t he cas e w as t r i ed t o a j ur y , w hi ch r ender ed a de fens e ver di cton G ener al M edici ne’s cl ai m s.

I n M ay2005, G ener al M ed i ci ne aga i n s ued M or ni ng V i ew , t hi s t i m e i n t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he Sout hern D i s t r i ctof O hi o. [JA 7 ]. T hats ui tal l eged b re a c h o f

c o n tra c t an d to rtio u s in ter f e re n c e w ith b u sin e ss re latio n s, e x p re ss lyp e rta in in g to t he si x M orni ng V i ew faci l i t i es otherthan N ew Phi l adel phi a. T he fede r al compl ai nts t at ed t hat“i n t he mi ddl e of the thr ee- y eart er m [s ] ” comm enci ng M ay1 , 2000, M or ni ng V i ew
w r ongful l yt er m i nat ed the s i x agr eement s . G ener al M edi ci ne furt hercom p lai ned thatGene ra l M e dic ine , P.C. v . M

or ning V ie w Ca reCe nters , No. 06-4605

Although its fe deral complaint is vague as to the date ra n ge wi thin which this alleg ed 1 conduct oc curred, General Medicine complained to Appellee as early as May 2001 “that Morning View is lookingto replac e the Me dical Dire ctors at the other MorningView f acilities.” 3 M or ni ng V i ew : ( 1) fai l ed t o m ake pa ym ent s ; and ( 2) pr event ed , o r w r ongful l yi nt er fer ed
w i t h, G eneral M edici ne st aff’s treatm ent of M orni ng V i ew pati ents . 1

M or ni ng V i ew fi l ed a m ot i on t o di s m i s s . C i t i ng c la im pr ecl us i on, t he di s t r i ct
cour tgr ant ed the mot i on as t o t he t or t i ous i nt er fer ence cl ai m an d the br eac h of contr act cl ai m , butonl yt o t he exten t tha t the l at t erw as “bas ed on the evi ct i on of Pl ai nt i ff f r om D efe ndant ’ s fac i l i t i es . ” T he re m ai nderof the br eac h of contr actcl ai m s , i nvol vi ng M or ni ng V iew ’s a lleg e d “ f

a ilu re to (1 ) pa y m o n th lyM e d ica l D ire c to r p a ym e n ts, a n d (2 ) c o m p lyw ith t he t er m i nat i on pr ocedur es s etfor t h i n t he agr eement [s ] , ” w er e di s m i s s ed on t he gr ounds of is s ue pr ecl us i on. T he pr es entappea l fol l ow ed. II. T his pan el revi ew s de novo a d istric t c o u rt’s d e c isio n re g a rd in g iss u e a n d c laim p re c lu s io n . See B lackv. Ryder / P
. I
. E
. N at i onw i de, I

nc. , 1 5 F . 3 d 5 7 3 , 5 8 2 (6th C ir
. 1 9 9 4 ). W h e n d e ter m in in g th e e f f e c t o f a p rio r state c o u rt ju d g m e n t, th e p re c lu sio n law o f th a t sta te is a p p lie d
. See G ar

gal l o v. Mer r i l lLynch, P i er ce, Fenner& Sm i th, I nc. , 918 F. 2d 658, 663 (6th C ir
. 1 9 9 0 ). III .

O hi o l aw r ecogni zes t he re l at ed doct r i nes of i s s ue and c l ai m pr ecl us i on underGene ra l M e dic ine , P.C. v . M

or ning V ie w Ca reCe nters , No. 06-4605

4 t h e u mb r e l l a t e r m re s ju d ica ta . See O ’ N es t i v. D eBart ol o R eal t

y C or p. , 862 N
. E . 2d 803, 806 (O h io 2 0 0 7 ). C laim p re c lu sio n , al so re f e rre d to a s e sto p p e l b yju d g m e n t, “p re v e n ts
s ubs equentact i ons , byt he s ame par t i es ort hei r pr i vi es , bas ed upon any cl ai m ar i s i ng outof a tr ans act i on that w as the s ubj ectm at t erof a pr evi ous act i on. ” I d. “[A ] n exi s t i ng fi nal jud g m en t or d ec ree b etw ee n the p arti es to li ti g ati o n is co n clus ive as t o all claim s w h ich w ere
orm ighthave be en l i t i g a t e d i n a f i r s t l aw s ui t . ” G r ava v. P ar km an Tw p. , 653 N
. E . 2d 226, 22 9 (O hio 199 5) ( em ph asi s i n ori ginal ) (ci t at i on om i t t ed). U nd er O hio l aw , a plai nti ff m ust

“ p re s e n t e v e ry g ro u n d f o r r e l i e f i n th e f

ir s t a c tio n , o r b e f

o re v e r b a rr e d f

ro m a s s e rt in g it.” I d. (cit ati o n o m itted).

I n G r ava , t he Supr eme C our t of O hi o “expr es s l y adher e[d] t o” Sect i ons 24 and 2 5 o f th e R e s ta te m e n t o f

th e L a w 2 d , J u d g m e n ts . See i d. O f part i cul arr el evanc e t o t he i ns t antappea l , t he G r ava cour tci t ed the fol l ow i ng R es t at ement l anguage : W hen a va l i d and fi nal j udgm entr ender ed i n an ac t i on ext i ngui s hes t he p l ai nti ff’s cl ai m pu rs uan t t o the rules of m erger or bar
. . . , the c laim ext i ngui s hed i ncl udes al l r i ght s of the pl ai nt i ff t o r emedi es agai ns tt he defe ndantw i t h r es pect to all o r anypar tof the tr 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 , o u t o f w h ic h th e a c tio n a ro s e . . . .

. . . T he rul e of § 24 appl i es t o ext i ngui s h a cl ai m byt he pl ai nt i ff a gai ns tt he d e f e n d a n te v e n t h o u g h t h e p l a i n t i f f i s p r e p a r e d i n t h e s e c o n d a c t i o n ( 1 ) To presentevidence o r gr ou nd s or theo ri es of t he case n ot pr esent ed in th e fi rs t act i on , or ( 2) T o seek rem edies or form s o f re lief no tdem and ed in t he fir st a c tio n . . . . T h e p re se n t tren d is to se e c laim in f a c tu a l term s a n d to m a k e it cot er m i nous w i t h the tr ans act i on r egard less of the number of s ubs t ant i ve t heor i es , orvar i antfor m s of r el i ef flow ing fr om t hos e theor i es , t hatm aybe a v a ila b le to th e p la in tif f[ .]Gene ra l M e dic ine , P.C. v . M

or ning V ie w Ca reCe nters , No. 06-4605

5 I d. (em p h ase s o m itted).

In th e p re se n t c a se , the d istric t co u rt c o rre c tlyo b se rv e d th a t th e se v e n F a c ili ty M edi cal M anage m ent A gr eement s ar e subs t ant i al l ys i m i l ar . I n ourvi ew , t heyr epr es ent“a
s er i es of conne ct ed tr ans act i ons . ” M or eover , byG eneral M edi ci ne’ s ow n admi s s i on, t he compl ai ned- of conduc tt ook pl ace “s om ew her e i n t he m i ddl e of” a thr ee- y eart er m t hatended in M a y 2 0 0 3
. G e n e ra l M e d icin e w a s a w a re o f th e su b jec t m a tter o f

its f e d e ra l su it p rio r to t he A pr i l 2003 fi l i ng of the s t at e courtcompl ai nt . T hus , per t ai n ing to thi s “s er i es of
connec t ed tr ans act i ons , ” appe l l antdi d not“pr es enteverygr ound forr el i ef i n t he fi r s tact i on . . . [ a n d is ] f

o re v e r b a rr e d f

ro m a s s e rt in g it” in th is c a s e . G r ava , 653 N
. E . 2d at229. W e conc l ude that t he ent i r e fe der al compl ai ntw as barr ed on the bas i s of c la im pr ecl us i on. A s s uch, w e nee d notaddr es s t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s par t i al appl i cat i on of is s ue pr ecl us i on. W e al s o need notaddr es s t he fa ctt hatt he N ew Phi l adel phi a agr eementcont ai ns a forum s el ect i on cl aus e di ffe r ent t han t hat found i n t he ot her s i x agr eement s . O urr evi ew of the app end i x an d b ri efi ng i nd i cat es that G eneral M edici ne rai se d th is p ointfor t he fir st tim e a t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h e is s u e is th u s w a iv e d
. S e e R e ith m ill e r v . B lu e C ro ss & B lu e Sh ield of Mi ch. , 8 2 4 F . 2 d 5 1 0 , 5 1 1 n . 2 (6th C ir
. 1 9 8 7 ).

For t he r eas ons s t at ed her ei n, w e AF F I RM .