FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT MAY 31, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 13750 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 4 - 8 0 2 1 8 - CV - J CP P E P I S C H A F L E R , D r ., P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s I ND I AN S P R I NG MAI NT E NA NC E AS S OC I AT I ON AN D E AC H I N D I V I D U A L M E M B E R O F T H E B O A R D , e t. a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M a y 31, 2005) B efo re A N D E R S O N , B IR C H an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

P ep i S ch afl er ap p eal s pro se th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l o f h e rc iv il di ve r s i ty c om pl a i nt , w hi c h w a s br oughtpur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1332, a s ba rr e d by the do ctri ne of r e s ju d ic a ta . A l though the di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d by notappl y i ng the fe dera l l aw of r e s ju d ic a ta , the error w as harm l es s i n l i gh tof the fa ctthat S chaf l er ’ s c l ai m m etal l of the fe dera l re qu i re m ent s of r e s ju d ic a ta . A cco rd i n g l y, w e A F F I R M . I . B AC KG RO UN D S c ha f l e r , aC a l i f

orni ac i t i z e n, f

i l e d the i ns t a ntc om pl a i nta ga i ns tthe fol l ow i ng F l ori da ci t i ze ns: (1) I nd i an S pri ng s M ai nt enance A ss oci at i on (“ IS M A ”) , a nd unknow n m e m be r s of i t s boa r d; ( 2) unknow n pa rt i c i pa nt s i n the “ tr a s h a nd de f a m e s e s s i ons ; ” ( 3) F a i rw a y P a rk C ondom i ni um A s s oc i a t i on ( “ F P C A ” ) , a nd unknow n m e m be r s of

i t s boa r d; a nd ( 4) the l a w f i rm of N a s on, Y e a ge r , G e r s on, W hi t e , a nd L i c oc e , P . A . ( “ F i rm ” ) . R 1- 1 a t1- 2. S c ha f l e ra l l e ge d tha ts he ow ne d, a nd a nnua l l y pl a c e d on the r e nt a l m a rke t , ac ondom i ni um i n B oy nt on B e a c h, F lo r id a , th a t w a s p a rt o f th e F a irw a y P a rkd e v e lo p m e n t, w h ic h I S M A m a n a g e d . S chaf l eral l eged thatIS M A (1) w rong ful l y s pentas soci at i on fe es thati tre ce i ved fr om i t s m em bers , (2) f

ai l ed t o p rovi de i t s m em bers w i th ann ual fi nanci al s ta te m e n ts , a s r e q u ir e d b y la w , a n d ( 3 ) h a r a s s e d S c h a f le rw h e n s h e a tte m p te d to obt a i n the s e r e c or ds . S he f urthe rc ont e nde d tha tI S M A ha r a s s e d he rby bl oc ki ng3

access t o h er ap artm en tw i th co n stru ct i o n . N ex t , sh e al l eg ed th at , fo r th e p ast s e v e r a l y e a r s , I S M A ’s p e r io d ic a s s o c ia tio n m e e tin g s h a d b e e n a“‘tr a s h in g o r g y , . . . d u r in g w h ic h [ s h e ] w a s d is c u s s e d a n d r id ic u le d , in s u lte d , tr a s h e d , in te n d in g to defa m e, sl ander, and p re se nt[her ] i n a fa l se l i gh t . ” I d. at4-5. S chaf

l eral so al l eged th a t I S M A : ( 1 ) e m b e z z le d a n d w r o n g ly c o n v e rte d h e ra s s o c ia tio n f e e s ; ( 2 ) f a ls e ly c la im e d th a t s h e h a d n o t p a id h e rf e e s a n dth e n “g a v e th e m s e lv e s p e rm is s io n to tr e s pa s s t o a nd oc c upy [ he r ] r e a l pr ope rty ; ” a nd ( 3) ke pttr a c k of he rpr e s e nc e on th e p r o p e rty . I

d. a t5- 7. S c ha f

l e rf ur the ra l l e ge d tha tF P C A ( 1) vi ol a t e d F l or i da l aw by fa i l i ng t o p rovi de her w i th fi nanci al st at em ent s, (2) c on vert ed or em bezz l ed he rf unds , ( 3) f

a l s e l y a l l e ge d tha ts he ha d f a i l e d t o pa y he ra s s oc i a t i on f e e s , a nd ( 4) tr e s p a s s e d o n h e rp r o p e rty . S h e n e x t c o n te n d e d th a t th e F irm w a s a“p a id e n ab le r [ ],” a n d a id e d a n d ab e tte d F P C A a n d I S M A in th e irw r o n g d o in g s . I d. a t8- 9 . F in a lly , s h e c la im e d th a t a ll th r e e d e f e n d a n ts ( 1 ) w e r e in v o lv e d in ac iv il conspi ra cy , (2) m ade f

al se al l egat i on s a gai nsther, and (3) i nt ent i on al l y c ause d h er to s u f f e re m o tio n a l d is tr e s s . S c h a f le rs o u g h t, in te ra lia , da m a ge s e xc e e di ng $ 5 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . F P C A f i l e d am ot i on t o di s m i s s , i n w hi c h i ta r gue d, in te ra lia , th at , b ecau se S c h a f le rh a d f ile d a c tio n s a r is in g f

r o m th e s a m e f

a c tu a l s itu a tio n s o n ay e a r ly b a s is agai nstthe sa m e def

endant s, her c om pl ai ntw as barr ed by the do ctri ne of res4

ju d ic a ta . A c c o r d in g to F P C A ( 1 ) S c h a f le rh a d f ile d a t le a s t tw o p r io rla w s u its s e e k in g th e s a m e o rs im ila rr e lie f a g a in s t th e s a m e d e f

e n d a n ts , ( 2 ) th e la w s u its a r os e outof

the s a m e s e tof

f a c t s , a nd r e s j udi c ata a l s o pr e c l ude s c ons i de r a t i on of i s s ue s tha tc oul d ha ve be e n r a i s e d, butw e r e not , i n the pr e vi ous l a w s ui t s , a nd ( 3) th e p art i es w ere i d en t i cal . T h e F i rm an d IS M A fi l ed su b st an t i al l y si m i l ar m o t i o n s. T h e d e f e n d a n ts a tta c h e d c o p ie s o f S c h a f le r ’s p r e v io u s la w s u its to th e ir m o tio n s to d is m is s . T h e s e m a te r ia ls s h o w th a t S c h a f le rp r e v io u s ly f

ile d ala w s u it i n s t a t e c ourta ga i ns tI S M A , w hi c h w a s di s m i s s e d w i thoutpr e j udi c e f orl a c k of p r o s e c u tio n o n 2 6 F e b ru a ry 2 0 0 3 . See R 1-8 atexhi bi tA . T hey a l so show that S c h a f le rf ile d ad iv e r s ity la w s u it, p ro se , on 12 F ebruary20 02 , i n the S ou thern D i stri ctof F l ori da agai nstF P C A , IS M A , the as soci at i on s’ i nd i vi du al bo ar d m e m b e r s , th e F irm , a n d its c o u n s e l. T h is la w s u it c o n c e rn e d S c h a f le r ’s o w n e r s h ip of a c on do m i ni um , i n the F ai rw ayP ark com pl ex, and h erce ntra l al l egat i on w as th a t th e d e f

e n d a n ts in te r f

e r e d w ith h e rb u s in e s s r e la tio n s h ip w ith h e rte n a n ts . T he r e , the di s tr i c tc ourtgr a nt e d the de f e nda nt s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s , f i ndi ng tha t( 1) S ch afl er’ s co m p l ai n tfai l ed t o st at e a cl ai m o f t o rt i o u s i n t erferen ce w i th a b u si n ess re l at i on shi p, ci vi l conspi ra cy , tre spas s t o chatt el , ext ort i on , defa m at i on , or l egal m alprac t i ce , and (2) no fa ct s w ou l d sup po rta j ury aw ar d o f pun i t i ve dam agesThe c ourt noted that, although it was dismissi ngSchafler’s c omplaint on the basis of res 1 jud ic ata , upon a cursor

y review of the merits, it felt that failureto state a c laim would probably “be an alter native method to dismissal.” R1-23 at 4 n.5. 5 s u f f ic ie n t to m e e t th e th r e s h o ld f o rd iv e r s ity ju r is d ic tio n . W e a f f irm e d . I d. at e x h ib it C . I n the i ns t a ntc a s e , S c ha f l e rf i l e d tw o a m e nde d c om pl a i nt s tha tdi d not s u b s ta n tia lly d if

f e rf r o m h e ro r ig in a l c o m p la in t. R 1 - 1 1 , 1 6 . S h e a ls o f ile d ar e p ly to th e d e f

e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n s to d is m is s , a r g u in g , in te ra lia , th atth e d efen d an t s’ cont ent i on thather c l ai m s w er e barre d b y the do ctri ne of r e s j udi c ata w as e rr o n e o u s , s in c e th e S u p r e m e C o u rt, in C om m iss i on erv. Su nn en , 333 U . S . 591, 59 8-99 , 68 S . C t . 71 5, 71 9-20 , 92 L . E d. 89 8 (19 48 ), hel d thatcol l at er al es t op pel h as n o b eari n g o n a si tu at i o n w h ere th e l eg al m att ers d et erm i n ed i n a p rev i o u s case d if f e re v e n s lig h tly f

r o m th o s e r a is e d in th e s e c o n d c a s e . S h e a ls o a r g u e d th a t, un der E r i e R . R . C o. v . T om pki ns , 30 4 U . S . 64 , 58 S . C t . 81 7, 82 L . E d. 11 88 (193 8), th e d efen d an t s’ rel i an ce o n st at e an d l o cal l aw w as erro n eo u s. T he di stri ctcourtdi sm i ss ed S chaf l er ’ s a m ended com pl ai ntw i th p re j ud i ce pu rs uantt o the do ctri ne of r e s ju d ic a ta . R 1- 23 a t3- 4. T a ki ng j udi c i a l not i c e of 1 the or de r s i s s ue d i n S c ha f l e r ’ s pr e vi ous l a w s ui t s , the c ourtf ound tha ta l l f

ourof F l ori da’ s r equi re m ent s of r e s j udi c ata w e r e m e tbe c aus e S c ha f l e rha d f i l e d tw o or m o r e p r io rla w s u its , a r is in g o u t o f th e s a m e s e t o f

f a c ts , w ith s o m e c o m p la in ts6

r e p e a t e d v e rb a t i m, th a ts o u g h tth e s a me o rs i mi l a rr e l i e f a g a i n s tth e s a me d e f e n d a n ts . I

d. a t3- 4. T he c ourtw a rne d S c ha f l e rtha the rbe ha vi orbor de r e d on b ei n g “ v ex at i o u s” an d cau t i o n ed h er ag ai n streasserti n g h er cl ai m s ag ai n stth ese defe nd ant s. S chaf

l erfi l ed a m ot i on for r ec on si dera t i on , al l egi ng thatthe di stri ct court ’ s dec i si on w as base d o n “ fa l se ho od s and dece i t , ” and bi as , w hi ch the di stri ct c o u rt d e n ie d . R 1 - 2 4 , 2 6 . I I . DI S CUS S I ON O n app ea l , S chaf

l erconcedes thatshe broug hta “ si m i l ar ” c l ai m i n F ebruary 2002 a ga i ns tthe s e de f

e nda nt s , buta r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc ourte rr e d by not appl y i ng the doc tr i ne of “ r e pe a t e d of

f e ns e a nd of

f e nde r . ” A ppe l l a ntB r i e f a t2, 24- 2 5 . S h e a r g u e s th a t, s in c e th e d e f e n d a n ts p r e v e n te d h e rf

r o m r e n tin g h e rp r o p e rty dur i ng D e c e m be r2001, w hi c h pr ovi de d the ba s i s f orhe r2002 l a w s ui t , the y ha ve cont i nu ed t o p re venther f rom re nt i ng her property, and such sub se qu entharm s are n o tb arred fro m ad

j u d i cat i o n b y r e s ju d ic a ta . A dd i t i on al l y, she argues thather pri or l aw sui tw as no ta f i nal j ud gm enton the m er i t s, si nce i tw as di sm i ss ed for l ac k of subj ec t -m att erj uri sdi ct i on , and there fore on e of the re qu i re m ent s f or res j udi c ata re m ai ns un m et . S he al so cont ends thatthe di stri ctcourt , un der E r ie , sh o u ldn o t h av e a p p li ed F lo rid a law . S h e f u rth erar g u es th at th e d istrict co u rt’s7

deci si on vi ol at ed du e proces s and equal prot ec t i on by denyi ng her the ri gh tt o an u n b ia s e d c o u rt. S c h a f

le ra ls o a r g u e s th e m e r its o f h e rc la im s . A s ap r e lim in a ry m a tte r , “[ w ]h e n ap r io ra c tio n is b r o u g h t in d iv e r s ity in fe dera l court , the fe dera l l aw of r e s j udi c ata g o v e rn s in as e c o n d s u it b r o u g h t in di vers i ty. ” C om m er ci alB ox & L um ber C o. v. U ni royal , Inc. , 623 F . 2d 371, 373 (5th C i r. 19 80 ). T here fore , t o the ext entthatthe di stri ctcourtappl i ed F l ori da l aw to d e te rm in e w h e th e rS c h a f le r ’s p r io rf

e d e r a l litig a tio n b a rr e d th e in s ta n t c la im , it e rr e d . N o n e th e le s s , th e e rr o rap p e a r s h a rm le s s b e c au s e S c h a f le r ’s c o m p la in t w o u ld al so b e b arred b y r e s j udi c ata u n d e rf e d e r a l la w . R e s j udi c ata i s al e g a l d e t e rm i n a t i o n th a twe r e v i e w de no vo . Jangv. U ni ted T e c h n o lo g ie s C o r

p ., 2 0 6 F .3 d 1 1 4 7 , 1 1 4 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . “R e s j udi c ata ba r s the fi l i ng of cl ai m s w hi ch w er e r ai se d o r c ou l d h ave been ra i se d i n an earl i er proceedi ng . ” R agsdal e v . R ub berm ai d, Inc. , 1 9 3 F .3 d 1 2 3 5 , 1 2 3 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . A n a c tio n is b a rr e d b y p r io rlitig a tio n if a ll o f “th e f o llo w in g e le m e n ts a r e p r e s e n t: (1) there i s afi nal j ud gm enton the m er i t s; (2) the deci si on w as re nd er ed by a c ou rt of com pet entj uri sdi ct i on ; (3) the part i es , or tho se i n p ri vi ty w i th them , ar e i dent i ca l i n b oth sui t s; and (4) the sa m e c ause of ac t i on i s i nv ol ved i n b oth cas es . ” I d. I ti s w e l l - s e tt l e d tha tadi s m i s s a l f orl a c k of

s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on “ i s not an adj ud i ca t i on on the m er i t s thatw ou l d g i ve ri se t o a vi abl e r es j ud i ca t a def ense . ”8

D a v ila v . D e lta A irL in e s , I n c ., 32 6 F . 3d 11 83 , 11 88 (11th C i r. 20 03 ), ce rt. deni ed , 5 4 0 U .S . 1 0 1 6 ( 2 0 0 3 ) . W e h a v e o b s e rv e d : [thatw ] e do n otbel i eve thatthe re s j ud i ca t a pre cl usi on of cl ai m s that ‘ coul d h ave been broug ht ’ i n ear l i erl i t i gat i on i ncl ud es cl ai m s w hi ch a r is e a f te rth e o r ig in a l p le a d in g is f ile d in th e e a r lie rlitig a tio n . I n s t e a d , [ th i s Co u rt ] b e l i e v e [ s ] th a t , f o rr e s j u d i c a t ap u rp o s e s , c l a i ms tha t‘ c oul d ha ve be e n br ought ’ a r e c l a i m s i n ex is te nc e at the t i m e the or i gi nal c om plai nt is f i le d or cl ai m s a ctual l y a ss ert ed . . . i n the ea rl i er a c tio n . . . T h e u n d e r ly in g c o r e o f f a c ts m u s t b e th e s a m e in b o th p ro ceed i n g s. I n r e P ip e rA ir c r a

ft C o r p ., 24 4 F . 3d 12 89 , 12 98 -130 1 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ) ( i nt ernal qu ot at i on s and ci t at i on s om i tt ed). B ec ause al l of the fe dera l re qu i re m ent s f or r e s j udi c ata ar e m et , the di stri ct c ourtc orr e c t l y f

ound tha tS c ha f

l e r ’ s F e brua ry 2002 l a w s ui tba rr e d the i ns t a nt c om pl a i nt . F i r s t , the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s 2002 or de rw a s e f f e c t i ve l y af

i na l j udgm e nton th e m er it s. In th at ca se , th e d istrict co u rt fu ll y a n alyz ed th e m er it s o f S ch af ler’s c a s e a n d f

o u n d th a t it f

a ile d to s ta te ac la im f

o rr e lie f . See R 1- 8 a te xh. B . T he c o u rt th e n n o te d th a t, b e c au s e S c h a f le rf a ile d to a lle g e a n y f

a c ts th a t w o u ld e n title her t o rel i ef

, no re as on abl e j ury c ou l d d et erm i ne thatshe w as ent i t l ed t o d am ages tha tw oul d m e e tthe j ur i s di c t i ona l a m ount , a nd di s m i s s e d the c l a i m a s a l s o l a c ki ng s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on. I n D a v ila , w h e r e th e d is tr ic t c o u rt r e a c h e d th e m e r its of the ca se and then fou nd thatsubj ec t -m att erj uri sdi ct i on w as l ac ki ng , w e hel d that the deci si on w as on the m er i t s, no t i ng that“ i f the di stri ctcourttrul y had di sm i ss ed9

the c a s e f

orl a c k of

s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on i tc oul d notl e gi t i m a t e l y ha ve re ac hed the m er i t s of [ the pl ai nt i ff’ s] cont ent i on s. ” D a v ila , 3 2 6 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 8 - 8 9 . L i kew i se , here , the di stri ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on thatS chaf l er ’ s c l ai m s l ac ked m er i tw as the basi s f

or i t s di sc ussi on of subj ec t -m att erj uri sdi ct i on . T here fore , S ch afl er’ s F eb ru ary 2 0 0 2 l aw su i tw as a fi n al j u d g m en to n th e m eri t s. N ext , the U . S . D i stri ctC ou rtfor the S ou thern D i stri ctof F l ori da w as a c ou rt of c om pe t e ntj ur i s di c t i on ove rthi s c a s e , pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . § 1332, a s s um i ng th a t th e ju r is d ic tio n a l a m o u n t w a s m e t. A d d itio n a lly , it is c le a rth a t th e p a rtie s in th e s u its w e r e id e n tic a l, s o th e th ir d r e q u ir e m e n t is m e t. T he fi nal re qu i re m entfor r e s j udi c ata w a s a l s o m e ti n thi s c a s e . A l though th e s p e c i f

i c c l a i ms i n e a c h c a s e d i f f e r e d s o me w h a t , b o th s u i t s i n v o l v e d t o rtc l a i ms for dam ages agai nstthese three defe nd ant s r egar di ng S chaf l er ’ s ow ners hi p o f a p a rtic u la rc o n d o m in iu m . See R 1- 1, 8 a tE xh. B , C . A c a r e f ul r e a di ng of S c h a f le r ’s c o m p la in t s h o w s th a t a ll o f h e rin s ta n t c la im s c o u ld h a v e b e e n r a is e d in h e rF e b ru a ry 2 0 0 2 la w s u it. Se e D a v ila , 3 2 6 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 7 . T h e in s ta n t s u it i nvol ve d tw o m a i n c om pl a i nt s : ( 1) m i s m a na ge m e ntof a s s oc i a t i on f

e e s ; a nd ( 2) h a r a s s m e n t a n d m is tr e a tm e n t o f S c h a f le r . See R 1- 1. T he r e i s no e vi de nc e i n the re cord t o sug gestthatthese cl ai m s w er e noti n exi st ence atthe t i m e of herori gi nal a c tio n . Se e I

n r e P i pe rA i r c r af

t C or p. , 244 F . 3d a t1299. R e ga r di ng the10

de f e nda nt s ’ m a na ge m e ntof a s s oc i a t i on f

e e s , S c ha f

l e r ’ s c om pl a i ntc ont a i ne d no da t e s a nd r e f

e rr e d t o “ a nnua l audi t e d f i na nc i a l s t a t e m e nt [ s ] ” tha tw e r e not de l i ve r e d, s ugge s t i ng tha ts he a l l e ge dl y ha d notbe e n r e c e i vi ng he rs t a t e m e nt s f or s o m e tim e . See R 1- 1 a t3- 4. R e ga r di ng the ha r a s s m e ntc l a i m s , he rc om pl a i nt r e f e rr e d to “tr a s h in g ” th a t h a d o c c u rr e d f o rs e v e r a l y e a r s d u r in g I S M A ’s p e r io d ic as soci at i on m ee t i ng s, and o therw i se fa i l ed t o o ri entt em po ra l l y any of the other a lle g e d h a r a s s m e n t. Se e id. a t1- 10. B oth S c ha f l e r ’ s c om pl a i nta nd br i e f s on ap p eal co n t ai n ex trem el y g en eral al l eg at i o n s th atfai l t o av er th atth ese cl ai m s aro se aft er h er p rev i o u s l aw su i to r t o cl ari fy ex act l y w h en th ey aro se. T h erefo re, b ecau se i tappe a r s tha tS c ha f

l e r ’ s c l a i m s w e r e i n e xi s t e nc e a tthe t i m e of he rpr e vi ous l aw sui t , and she fa i l s t o sho w otherw i se , the fourth requi re m entfor r e s ju d ic a ta w a s m e t. I I . CONCL US I ON S chaf l er ’ s argum ent s on app ea l ar e w i tho utm er i t . S he offer s no l egal s upportf orhe rc ont e nt i on tha tc ont i nui ng c onduc ti s notba rr e d by the doc tr i ne of r e s ju d ic a ta . A dd i t i on al l y, there i s no evi dence i n the re cord t o sup po rther a lle g a tio n s o f

b ia s , a n d th e r e c o r d s h o w s th a t s h e d id n o t f ile am o tio n f

o rr e c u s a l. A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y c on cl ud ed thatthe i nst antcom pl ai ntw as barr ed by the do ctri ne of r e s ju d ic a ta . B ec ause w e a ff i rm the di stri ctcourt ’ s order11

on r e s j udi c ata grou nd s, w e nee d n otconsi der the defendant s’ cont ent i on that S ch afl er’ s b ri ef v i o l at ed th e F ed eral R u l es o f A p p el l at e P ro ced u re. A cco rd i n g l y, w e A F F I R M.