[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 13-10871

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cv-03325-RLV

DENISE DORSEY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITIMORTGAGE, INC., 

Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(March 24, 2014)

Before MARCUS, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Denise Dorsey, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s dismissal of 

her state and federal civil rights claims, brought under diversity jurisdiction, 28 

Case: 13-10871 Date Filed: 03/24/2014 Page: 1 of 4 
2

U.S.C. § 1332, and the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq.,

against CitiMortgage, Inc. (“Citi”). In November 2010, Dorsey filed a Verified 

Complaint for Emergency Injunctive Relief and Declaratory Judgment against Citi 

in the Superior Court of Clayton County, Georgia. She alleged that Citi lacked any 

legal or equitable interest in the note and security deed to her home, and hence 

lacked standing to foreclose. Dorsey also claimed that the foreclosure sale notice 

failed to comply with the notice provisions of O.C.G.A. § 44-14-162.2. Citi 

removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

Georgia. In November 2011, the district court granted Citi judgment on the 

pleadings on all of Dorsey’s claims.

The action now before us on appeal was filed on September 6, 2012 in the 

Superior Court of Clayton County. Dorsey disputed the amount in default and 

alleged that Citi had not credited her attempted payments to her mortgage loan 

account since April 2010, in violation of TILA. She also claimed, once again, that 

Citi lacked standing to foreclose on her home and that the notice of foreclosure 

was inadequate under Georgia law. Citi removed the case to the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On January 28, 2013, the 

district court dismissed this action on res judicata grounds. 

We review de novo a dismissal based on res judicata. Ragsdale v. 

Rubbermaid, Inc., 193 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th Cir. 1999). “Although state law 

Case: 13-10871 Date Filed: 03/24/2014 Page: 2 of 4 
3

governs whether a state court judgment bars a subsequent federal diversity action, . 

. . [w]hen [the] prior action [was] brought in diversity in federal court, the federal 

law of res judicata governs in a second suit brought in diversity.” Commercial Box 

& Lumber v. Uniroyal, Inc., 623 F.2d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 1980);1 accord Citibank, 

N.A. v. Data Lease Financial, Corp., 904 F.2d 1498, 1501 (11th Cir. 1990) 

(“[E]ven in a case which rests its subject matter jurisdiction solely upon diversity 

of citizenship, a federal court must apply federal law to determine the preclusive 

effect of a prior federal court decision.”).

2

 Under federal law, a claim is barred by 

res judicata if all four of the following elements are present: “(1) there is a final 

judgment on the merits; (2) the decision was rendered by a court of competent 

jurisdiction; (3) the parties, or those in privity with them, are identical in both suits; 

and (4) the same cause of action is involved in both cases.” Ragsdale, 193 F.3d at 

1238. Each of these elements is present here.

The prior decision granting judgment on the pleadings is a final judgment on 

the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. The parties in this action 

are identical to the parties in the prior action. And the same cause of action is

 1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir.1981) (en banc), we 

adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions issued before October 1, 1981. 2 The district court applied Georgia law, instead of federal law, to determine the 

preclusive effect of the judgment in Dorsey’s earlier lawsuit. This was error. However, this 

error does not warrant reversal because we conclude that application of the federal standard 

would yield the same result. Cf. Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1256 (11th Cir. 

2001) (noting that “we may affirm [the] judgment on any ground that finds support in the record” 

(internal citations and quotations omitted)).

Case: 13-10871 Date Filed: 03/24/2014 Page: 3 of 4 
4

involved in both cases because both cases arise “out of the same nucleus of 

operative fact” and “is based upon the same factual predicate.” Ragsdale, 193 F.3d 

at 1239. The events giving rise to Dorsey’s claims in her present action, including 

the TILA claim, occurred before Dorsey filed her complaint in the prior action. 

Thus, these claims “were raised or could have been raised” in the first lawsuit. Id.

at 1238. 

As all four elements of res judicata are satisfied, we affirm the district 

court’s dismissal of Dorsey’s complaint as barred by the doctrine of res judicata. 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 13-10871 Date Filed: 03/24/2014 Page: 4 of 4