## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 21

- 00015

- CV

EDWARD COX AND THERESA COX , Appellant s V. PREMIER LAND LIQUIDATORS, LLC, AND CEDAR CREEK PRESERVATION, LLC , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 62nd District Co urt Hopkins County, Texas Trial Court No. CV44453

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ. Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss2 

### ME MORANDUM OPINION
Edward and Theresa Cox sued P remier L and L iquidators, LLC (Premier), and C edar Creek P reserv ation, LLC (Cedar Creek), for claims arising out of an automobile accident. Premier and Cedar Creek moved for summary judgment on the ground that the Coxes’ claims
were barre d by res judicata. The trial court granted the summary judgment motions and dism issed the Coxes’ claims with prejudice. We affirm. In our companion ca u se number 06

- 20

- 00078

- CV, the Coxes filed a voluntary nonsuit of their claims against P remier and C edar Creek after the trial court indicated that it was going to strike their late

- fil ed peti tions for failure to comply with its docket control order. Even so, the Coxes refiled the previously struck claims in this new lawsuit against Premier and Cedar Creek. In our opinion in cause numb er 06

- 20

- 00078

- CV, we upheld the trial court’s deci sion to dismiss the Coxes’ claims against Premier and Cedar Creek with prejudice , after it found that the nonsuit was taken for improper purpose s, including avoiding an unfavorable decision on the merits

. 1
Th e doctrine of res judicata “ ‘ promote [s] judic i al efficiency, prot ect [s] parties from multiple lawsuits, and prevent [s] inconsistent judgments by precluding the relitigation ’ of matters tha t have already been decided or could have been litigated in a prior suit. ” In re Team Rocket, L.P

. , 256 S.W.3d 2 5 7, 260 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding) (quoting Sysco Food Servs., Inc. v. Trapnell , 890 S.W.2d 796, 801 (Tex. 1994 ))

. “[A] decision on the merits cannot be circ umvented by nonsuiting and refiling the case .” Id.

1 The Coxes argue in their sole point of e rror on th is issue that, “ [i] f this Co urt reverses the trial court’s ord er dismissing Cox’s first case with prejudice as Cox has argued, this Court should reverse the trial court’s summary judgment order issued in the second case and remand that case for further p ro ceedings. ”3

“[A] dismissal or nonsuit with prejudice i s ‘ tantamount to a judgment on the meri ts. ’ ” Epps v. Fowler , 351 S.W.3d 862, 868 (Tex. 2011) (quoting Dean v. Riser , 240 F.3d 505, 50 9 (5th Cir. 2001) ). “ The res judicata effect of a nonsuit with prejudice works a permanent, inalterable change in the par t ies ’ legal relation ship to the defendan t ’ s benefit: the defendant can never again be sued by the plaintiff or its privies for claims ar ising out of the same subject
matter. ” Id. at 868

– 69 ( citing Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim , 315 S.W.3d 860, 86 2 (Tex. 2 010)).
Because we u pheld the trial cour t’s decision to dismiss with prejudice the Coxes’ claims against Premier and Cedar Creek in cause number 06

- 2 0

- 00078

- CV, we find that the trial court correctly concluded that res judicata barred the Coxes’ claims ag a inst those same defe ndants in this case. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Josh R. Morriss, III Chief Justice Date Submitted: July 28 , 2021 Date Decided: September 7 , 2021