FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MARCH 1, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO N OT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 10 55 3 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 8 :0 9- cv -0 26 28 -J DW -TBM EMMANUEL EBEH, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us ST. PAUL TRAVEL ERS, CHARTER OAK FIRE INSURANCE COM PANY, PAT REDMOND, JOHN MI KOS, Dr., LAKESIDE OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL CENTE R, P.A., Defen da nt s- App el le es , METRO STORAGE, LLC, et al ., Defen da nt s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Ma rch 1, 2 01 2)Befo re CARNES, PRYOR, an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM: Em m anue l Eb eh , an Afr ic anAm eri canm al e p ro ceed in g p ro se, fi le d a lawsu itinfed eral di st ric t co urt ag ai ns t Lak es id e Occupa ti on al Med ic al Cen te rs , P.A., all eg in g n eg li ge ntm is rep res en ta ti on , in te nt io na l i nf li ct io n o f em ot io na l di st res s, v io la ti on of F lo rid a’s Decep ti ve an d Un fai r Trad e Pra ct ic es Act, Fl a. St at . § 5 01 .20 1 e t s eq ., andrace di sc riminat io n u nd er 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 81 . The d is tri ct co urt d is m is se d Eb eh ’s com pl ai ntaft er co nc lu di ng th atres jud ic at a b ars all of h is cl ai m s. Th is is Ebeh ’s app eal . I. Ebe h fi le d aco m

pl ai ntinFlo rid a st at e co urt al le gi ng th atLake si de m is tre at edhi m

when he so ug htm ed ic al tre atm en t fo r work- rel at edin juri es . The co m pl ai ntass ert edvario us st at e la w cla im s, i nc lu di ng ne gl ig en t m is rep res en ta ti on an d i nt en ti on al in fli ct io n o f em ot io na l d is tre ss , anda race di sc riminat io n c la im un de r 42 U.S.C. § 1 98 1. Lak es id e m ov edto di sm is s the co m pl ai ntbe cau se Ebeh fai le d t o c om

pl y with F lo rid a’s pr e-s ui t re qu ire m en ts form ed ic al m al pr act ic e act io ns . The Fl or id a co urt g ran te d tha t m ot io n, d is mis si ng th e co m pl ai nt“ with pr ejud ic e.” Tha t d is m is sa l was affi rm edon ap pe al . See Eb ehv. Lak es id e Occupa ti on al Med . Ctr s., P.A., 22 So . 3d79 (Fl a. 2dDCA 20 09 ). 2Ebe h the n fi le d aco m pl ai ntinfed eral co urt as se rti ng all of t he same clai m s th atwere i nc lu de d i n h is st at e co urt co m pl ai ntpl us a ne w cla im

un de r Fl or id a’s Decep ti ve an d Un fai r Trad e Pra ct ic es Act, Fl a. St at . § 5 01 .20 1 e t s eq . Lakes id e m ov edto di sm is s al l o f th e cl ai m s b as edon res jud ic at a, as se rti ng th atth e st at e co urt’s i nv ol un tary

di sm is sa l o f Ebe h’s co m pl ai nt“ with p reju di ce” o pe rat edas a n ad jud ic at io n o n the m eri ts . Thatdi sm is sa l, Lak es id e arg ue d, al so pre cl ud ed Ebe h’s n ew FDUTPA cla im be cau se th e cl ai m

aro se fro m

th e sa m e se t o f fac ts as th e o th er caus es of a ct io n tha t the st at e co urt d is m is se d. Th e d is tri ctco urt ag reed with Lak es id e an d d is m is se d Eb eh ’s ent ire co m pl ai nton res jud ic at a g ro un ds . II. W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s d et erm in at io n tha t a c la im is ba rredby res jud ic at a. E.E.O. C. v. Pe m co Aero pl ex , Inc ., 38 3 F .3d12 80 , 12 85 (11 th Cir . 20 04 ). W e al so rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s i nt erp ret at io n o f st at e la w. Jo ne s v. Un it edSp ace Al li an ce, L.L.C., 49 4 F .3d13 06 , 13 09 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ).

“ [W] he n afed eral co urt ex erci se s fe de ral qu es ti on juri sd ic ti onan d i s as ke d to gi ve res jud ic at a effe ctto a st at e co urt ju dg m en t, i t m us t ap pl y th e res jud ic at a pr in ci pl es of t he law o f th e st at e who se de ci si on is setup as aba r to furth er li ti ga ti on .” Am ey , Inc . v. Gu lf Ab stract& Tit le , Inc ., 75 8 F .2d14 86 , 15 09 (11 th Ci r. 19 85 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Becau se Lake si de co nt en ds th ata Fl or id a 3st at e co urt ju dg m en t b ars Ebeh ’s fed eral laws ui t, we ap pl y Flo rid a’s do ctrin e o f res jud ic at a to th is cas e. Acco rd in g t o tha t d oc tri ne , an e arl ie r la wsu itpre cl ud es a la te r lawsu itif (1 ) th e two su it s i nv ol ve th e “ sa m e p art ie s” ; (2 ) th e fi rs t s ui t was res ol ve d b y

“ a co urt o f co m

pe te ntjuri sd ic ti on ”; (3) th e fi rs t s ui t en de d wi tha

“ jud gm en t o n the m eri ts ”; an d (4 ) th e two su it s ar e b as edup on “ th e sa m e cau se s o f act io n.” Fla . Dep’t o f Tran sp . v. Jul iano , 80 1 S o. 2 d 1 01 , 10 5 (F la . 20 01 ). The fir stth ree p ro ng s ar e eas il y m ethe re. Fi rs t, Eb ehfil edhi s s ta te laws ui t an d fe de ral laws ui t ag ai ns t the same party , Lake si de . Seco nd , th e Fl or id a st at e co urt tha t d is mis se d Eb eh ’s com pl ai ntis a co urt o f co m

pe te ntjuri sd ic ti on . Thir d, th e st at e co urt ju dg m en t d is m is si ng Ebeh ’s com pl ai ntop erat es as a n a dju di cat io n on th e m eri ts be cau se th e co urt d idno t s pe ci fic al ly say th atit s o rd er o f in vo lu nt ary di sm is sa l was no t an ad

jud ic at io n o n the m eri ts . See Fl a. R. Ci v. P. 1 .42 0( b) ; s ee al so All ie v. Io na ta , 50 3 S o. 2 d 1 23 7, 1 24 2 (F la . 19 87 ) (“ Unl es s o th erwi se sp eci fic al ly exem

pt ed , a di sm is sa l co ns ti tu te s an ad jud ic at io n o n the m eri ts .”). W e n ow turn t o the fou rth pro ng of F lo rid a’s res jud ic at a d oc tri ne , de te rm in in g wh ethe r th e two laws ui ts in vo lv e “ th e sa m e cau se of a ct io n.” In the st at e an d fe de ral co m

pl ai nt s, Eb ehass ert edid en ti cal cla im s fo r ne gl ig en t m is rep res en ta ti on , in te nt io na l i nf li ct io n o f em ot io na l d is tre ss , andrace di sc riminat io n. Th os e th ree c la im s, the refo re, are ba rredby Flo rid a’s do ctrin e o f 4res jud ic at a.

Ebe h’s FDUTPA cl ai m

is als o b arre d e ve n tho ug h h e d idno t ra is e itinth e st at e co m pl ai nt . Und er Fl or id a la w, “ th e d oc tri ne of r es jud ic at a . . . bars fro m subs eque ntli ti ga ti on all cla im s tha t wer e rai se d o r co ul d h av e b eenrai se d i n the fir stcau se of a ct io n.” Fel de r v. St at e, Dep ’t Mg m t. Se rv s., 9 93 So . 2d10 31 , 10 34 (Fl a. 1s t DCA 2 00 8) ; s ee al so Fla . Dep’t Tran sp . v. Jul iano , 80 1 S o. 2 d 1 01 , 10 7 (Fl a. 20 01 ) (“ [R]es ju di cat a b ars rel it ig at io n i n asubs eque ntcau se of a ct io n n ot on ly of cl ai m s ra is ed , bu t al so cla im s tha t co ul d h av e b eenrai se d.” ); J en ki ns v. Len nar Co rp ., 97 2 S o. 2 d 1 06 4, 1 06 5 (F la . 3rdDCA 20 08 ) (“ The do ctrin e o f res jud ic at a b ars re-l it ig at io n o f a cau se of a ct io n fo r cl ai m s tha t wer e rai se d a ndco ul d ha ve be enrai se d i n apri oract io n.” ). Ebeh ’s FDUTPA clai m is an ot he r th eo ry

of reco ve ry forth e sa m e h arm

th athe att em

pt edto redres s wh enhe fil edth e st at e co urt co m

pl ai nt . Becau se he co ul d h av e as se rte d the FDUTPA cla im at t ha t t im e, he is ba rredfro m

ass ert in g i t n ow. AFFIRMED.

5