NO. 07-07 -003 9-CV IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D OC TOBER15, 2008

_________

_________

_________

___ JOHNNY

RODRIGUEZ, JR., APPEL LANT

V. IC ON BEN EFI T ADM IN ISTRATORS, IN C. , AP PELLEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE COU NT Y COUR T AT LAW NO. 3 O F L UB BO CKCOU NT Y; NO . 200 6- 598,648 ; H ON ORABLE PAU LA LA NE HA RT, JU DG E

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ.
DI SSEN TI NG O PIN ION I respect f ully

disagree w ith the conclusio n reach ed b y my learne d collea gues. W hile I ackno w ledge tha t this Court ha s previ ously determ ined thatan orde r of dismissal, which er ro neous ly

st ates thati t i s g ra nted “w it h preju dic e,” operates as a ba r to furtherLab rie v. Kenn ey, 95 S.W .3d 722 (Tex.App .–A ma rill o 20 03, no pe t.). 1 2 p ro s e c u t i o n u n d e r

t h e d o c t r i n e o f re s judicat a, I c annot, i n g o o d c o nsc ien ce, foll ow that 1 author ity . I w oul d ov ertur n Labr ie and rev erse the j udg ment of the tr ial co urt. App e lla n t, Jo h n n y Rod rigu e z, Jr. , c h a lle n ges a su m m a ry jud gm e n t rendered i n fav or of Appel lee , I CO N Benefit Admin is trators, Inc

. By tw o points of

error , he maint ain s ( 1) the t r i a l c o u rte r r e d i n g r a n t i n g s u mm a r y j u d g me n tu n d e r

a t h e o r y o f re s judicat

a as there w as nev er a de ci si on on the mer it s o f his cl aims and becau se tw o new and different caus es of act ion w ere plead ag ain st IC ON , and (2) the tr ial courtdenied h im h is due proces s r ig hts under both the Tex as and Uni ted S tates C onst it uti ons by g ra nti ng su mmary

j udg ment on a t h e o r y o f re s judicat

a w it hout a full and fair

hear ing on t he mer it s of his caus es of acti on. Back ground
On M ar ch 21, 2 003, Rod ri g uez , a Ci ty of Lubboc k employ ee, filed sui t i n the 99th Di str ic t C our

t of Lubboc k C ounty , ag ain st John Lez a for inj ur ies he sus tained i n an automobi le col li si on in Apri l 2001. After di sc ov er y prog re ss ed, R odr ig uezand Lez a ag re ed to s u b mi tt h e d i s p u t e t o m e d i a t i o n . Atm e d i a t i o n , o n S e p t e mb e r 3 0 , 2 0 0 3 , t h e p arti es signed a sett lem entagreeme nt pu rsuan t to Rule 11 of the T exas Rules of

Civ il Procedu re w hereby Lez a agre e d t o p a y $6,500 to s ettl e al l cl aims ar is ing out of the c oll is ion

. In re tu rn , Rodr ig uezag re ed to i ndemni fy Lez a from an y par ty cl aimi ng an i nteresti n the settle m e n tp ro c e eds. Rodrig uez also agreed to p rov ide Le z a eith er a release or aSee Rodrigu ez v. L eza and

ICON Bene fit Admi

nistrato rs , Inc. , N o. 07 -0 4- 0463- CV , 2 2006 W L 38522 8 ( Tex .App. –Amar il lo Feb. 17, 20 07, p et. deni ed) ( not d esi g nated for 3 negotia ted settlem entof the claim s o f

HMO Blue , the City

of Lub bock’s he alth insu rance prov ide r, and IC ON , t he w or kers’ co mpensat ion ca rr ier

. Una ble to re ach an ag re ement w it h IC ON , R odr ig uezdi d notex ecut e the se ttl ement document s a nd i nst ead, on J anuar y 8, 2004, w it hout lea v e of cour t, fi le d a n amended pet ition ad ding ICON as a defend anta nd alleging DTP A and Insuran ce Code v iolation s. On J uly 1, 2004, Lez a fil ed th e medi ati on s ettl ement ag re ement w it h the co urt and mov ed to en force the a g re ement pu rs uant to R ule 11. O n A u g ust6, 2004, the c our t hel d a hear ing ; how ev er , neith er Rodr ig ueznor ICO N, nor t hei r re specti v e c ounse l appeared. At that hear ing Lez a’s co unsel st ated, “ w e w oul d lik e the Court to se v er thi s c ase as re g ards the c lai ms t hat a re as ser ted b etw een t he or ig ina l Pl ain ti ff , R odr ig uez , and Lez a; al low us to t ender the s ettl ement money i nto t he R eg is tr

y of the C our

t, pendi ng di spos it ion of the claims b e t ween Rodriguezand [ICON]. . . .” W ithou t f urthe r arg um ent , the trial court respo nde d, “W ell, y ou kn ow, I’v e got a real interest ing proposition for the Pla intif f ’s lawy ers. I don ’t see any Lea v e of Court to bring a new party into this law suit. . . . So I think we’re g oin g to g ra nt y our

rel ief. Got an Order ?” Thereafter , on Aug ust12, 2004, w it hout IC ON hav ing req uest ed any

reli ef, the t ri al cour

t s ig ned i ts jud g ment enfor ci ng the mediat ion ag re ement an d di smi ss ing Rodr ig uez ’s clai ms aga ins t both Lez a and IC ON , w it h preju dic e. Rod ri g uezappeal ed th e tr ial co urt’ s o rd er w it hout cont est ing the “w it h preju dic e” prov is ion , and byopinio n da ted Februa ry 17, 20 06, this Court af f irmed the trial court’s orde r. 2publ ic ati on)

. The onl y contenti on rais ed on appeal w as the t ri al cour t er re d i n g ra nti ng sum m ar y judgm ent for IC ON

. Rod ri g uez did not p re senta po intof er ro r chal len g ing the dis mis sal for mis

joi nder or the dis mis sal w it h preju dic e. Beca use sum m ar y judgm ent w as not rendered i n fav or o f I CO N, thi s C our

t hel d tha t R odr ig uez ’s so le poi nt of er ro r pr esent ed not hin g for rev iew

. 4 T here af ter, on March 17, 20 06, Rodriguezf iled the und erly ing suit againstICON in the Coun ty Court At Law No. 3 of Lub bock County assertin g the DT P Aa n d I n s uran ce Cod e v iol ati ons all eg ed i n the prev iou s s uitand a d din g new cl aims for fraud, breach of c o n t ra c t , a n d d e c l a r a t o r y j u d g me n t

. I C O N p l e a d e d t h e a ffi r ma t i v e d e fe n s e o f re s judicat a as a bar to Rod ri g uez ’s su itand mov ed for sum m a ry judgment

. The tr ial co urt g ra nted summar y j udg ment and R odr ig ueznow appeal s t hat j udg ment.
St and ard o f Rev iew
I C O N mo v e d fo r s u mm a r y j u d g me n t b a s e d s o l e l y o n t h e a ffi r ma t i v e d e fe n s e o f re s jud ic ata . Th us, to be entitled to summ ary judgme nt, ICON had the burd en to prove each ele ment of thatdefense a s a matte r of law

. Tex . R . C iv . P. 166a( c) ; Sha h v. Moss , 67 S.W .3d 8 36, 8 42 ( Tex . 200 1) ; R andal l’ s F ood M ar ket s, Inc

. v. Johns on, 891 S.W .2d 6 40, 644 ( Tex . 199 5)

. An appell ate cour

t rev iews an order

g ra nti ng su mmary

j udg ment de n ovo. Valence Oper atingC o. v

. D or sett, 164 S.W .3d 656 , 661 (Tex. 2005 ). In rev iew ing a summ ary jud g ment, thi s C our

t mus t app ly

w ell -e sta bli shed sta ndards w hic h are: ( 1) the mov ant for summar y j udg ment has the burden of sh ow ing thatthere i s no genui ne iss ue of mater ial5

fact an d tha t it is ent itled to judgme nt as a ma tter of law ; (2) in deciding w het her the re is a di sput ed mater ial fact i ss ue precl u d in g s ummary j udg ment, ev ide nce fav orabl e to the non -movant wi ll be taken as true; and (3) ev eryreason able inferen ce mu st be ind ulged in fav or of the non- mov ant and anydoubts resol v ed i n i ts fav or . Am . Toba cco Co. v. Grinne ll, 951 S. W .2d 4 20, 4 25 ( Tex . 199 7) ( ci ti ng Ni xon v. Mr

. Pr op. M gm t. Co. , 690 S. W .2d 5 46, 548- 49 ( Tex . 198 5) ).
Res Judic ata
Th e d o c t r i n e o f r

e s ju d ic a ta b a rs the relitigation of claims tha t have bee n f inally adju dicate d or tha t arise outo f t he sam e subject ma tter an d cou ld have bee n litig ate d in the p ri or ac ti on. Iga l v. Brightstar Info rm ation Techn ology Group , Inc. , 250 S.W .3d 7 8, 86 (Te x . 2008 ). For re s judicat a to ap ply , t he foll ow ing el ements mustbe p re sent : ( 1) a pr ior final j udg ment on the mer it s b y a courtof compet ent j ur is dic ti on; ( 2) the same p arti es or tho se in priv ity

w ith the m; and (3) a second a c t io n b a s ed o n the same claims as w ere ra is ed or co uld hav e been ra is ed i n the first act ion

. Id.
M u c h o f t h e d i ffi c u l t y

a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a p p l i c a t i o n o f the d o c t r i n e o f re s judicat a is due t o the co mmon confusi on of sev eral rela ted t heor ies , t he i mprec is e and inc onsi ste nt use o f the te rm in legal w ritings, and the app lication o f the do ctrine to b ar a claim or cau se of acti on notac tual ly

l it ig ated. Barr v. Resolutio n Trust Corp ., e x r e l

. S u n b e lt

Feder al Savi ngs , 837 S.W .2d 627, 628 (Tex . 199 2)

. Generall y sp eaki ng , re s judicat

a is a g ene ric ter m for a g ro up of rela ted c oncep ts conc er nin g the conc lus iv e effectto b e gi v en a final6

jud g ment. Id

. Res

judicat a cla im s f a ll into tw o pr inc ipa l cat eg or ies : ( 1) cl aim precl usi on (ty p ic a ll y ref erred to as re s judicat a ); and (2 ) is sue precl usi on ( ty pic all y referred to as col lat eral est oppel ). Id. at 6 28. As prev iou sl y st ated, re s judicat

a , or cl aim precl usi on, pr ev ents the re li ti g ati on of a c lai m or ca use of acti on th at ha s been ac tual ly l it ig ated in a previous suit, as w ell a s r elate d claims “w hich, th rough the ex ercise of dilig ence , could have bee n litig ate d in a prior suit.” Hal lc o T exas, Inc. v. McMullen C o u n ty, 221 S.W .3d 5 0 , 5 8 ( T e x. 20 0 6 ) (qu o ti n g Gett y Oi l Co. v. Ins ur

ance Co. of Nor

th A m er ic a, 845 S. W .2d 794, 799 ( Tex . 199 2) ). I ss ue precl usi on, o r col lat era l e st o p p el, prev ents reli ti g ati on of par ti cul ar is sues that hav e already been resol v ed i n prev iou s l it ig ati on. Barr, 837 S.W .2d a t6 2 8

. Th e s u m a n d s u b s t a n c e o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f re s judicat a is thatonc e a mat ter

has been di sti nct ly

put in iss u e a n d direct ly dete rmi ned by

a c our t of co mpetent jur is dic ti on, then the mat ter

ca nnot be reli ti g ated, thereby reduci ng unnec ess ar y l it ig ati on and promoti ng co nfidenc e and re li ance in the fin ali ty of li ti g ati on. Allen v. McCurry, 449 U .S. 90, 9 5, 10 1 S. Ct . 411 , 66 L.Ed. 2d 308 (1 980)

. Generall y , a dis mis sal w it h preju dic e functi ons as an adj udi cat ion on t he mer it s a nd operates as i f the c ase had bee n full y tr ied and deci ded. See Ritchey v. Vas quez

, 986 S.W .2d 611 , 612 (T ex. 19 99). Th erefore, an order dism issing a case w ith prejud ice w ould ordina rily

have fu ll re s judicat

a eff ect , bar ri ng su bseq uent re li ti g ati on of the same c auses of acti on or

i ss ues betw een t he s ame par ti es. See Barr

, 837 S.W .2d at 630 -31. How ever, the dismissal of

a cla im for f ailure to co mp ly w ith a proce dura l rule, such as m isjoinde r, is
n ot a dis mis sal on t he mer it s. See Thom as v. Kni ght , 52 S. W .3d 292 , 295 (Tex.App .--7

Corpus Christi 200 1, pe t. de nied ). R ath er, it is m e re ly an e x ercise of the trial court’s dis creti on, a nd i f the er ro r can be remedie d, di smi ss al w it h preju dic e is unw ar ra nted. See Hickm an v. Adam s, 35 S.W .3d 120 , 124 -25 (Te x .Ap p.– Housto n [14 Dist.] 2000 , no pe t.). th Therefore, t he di smi ss al of a cl aim w it h preju dic e, for f ail ure to compl y

w it h a p ro cedural ru le that coul d be re medied , is n o t a dis mis sal on t he mer it s a nd i t i s n ot en ti tl ed to re s jud ic ata eff ect

. Appel lan t’ s fai lure to proper ly j oin IC ON co uld hav e been re medied ; t herefore, the trial court’s dismissa l wi th preju dice w as imp rope r. Because Rodriguez ’s claims against ICON w ere no t actu ally litig ate d in the previ ous su it , a n d b e c ause the trial court’s unw ar ra nted dis mis sal w it h preju dic e c annot be asser ted as a final dete rmi nati on on the me r i t s , t h e d o c t r i n e o f re s judicat a is not appl ic abl e to the fact s o f this ca se. Sta t e d d i ffe r e n t l y , t h e s u mm a r y j u d g me n t p ro o f i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e d o e s not conc lus iv ely

establ is h that a final jud g ment on th e m erits w as entered in the first sui t. See Stubbs v. Patter

son Den tal

Labor ator ies , 573 S.W .2d 2 74 ( Tex .C iv .App. –Eas tl and 197 8, no w ri t)

. In Stubbs , t he defe nd an t as s er te d th atthe pr i or

di s mi s s al o f t he p l ai nt i ff’s c l ai ms “w it h preju dic e” w as suffici ent to suppo rt the tr ial cour t’ s g ra nti ng of summar

y j udg ment on t h e b a s i s o f re s judicat a . In find ing thatthe dis mis sal w it h preju dic e w as not a final jud g ment on the mer it s, the a ppel lat e c our t, int er al ia, obs er

v ed:

w hen c onfronte d w it h an order co ntai nin g a no tati on of “ dis mis sed w it h prejud ice” w here the dism issal o rder [is] clearlyn ot on the m erits,

. . . it [is] the n ature o f

the act ion and the c haract er of the j udg ment t hat d eter mines w het her it is re s judicat a , and i f the j udg ment is cl ear ly not on th e mer it s, the w ords “w it h preju dic e” add nothi ng to the e ff ectof the j udg ment.8

Id. at 27 7.
Here, I CO N arg ues that becau se Rod ri g uez did not attac k the propr iety of t he “ w it h pr eju dic e” st atement in hi s f irst appeal , the order rendered bythe di str ic t c our t c onst it utes a f inal de term inatio n on the m erits. Th is reasonin g imp rope rly constrain s our de n ovo rev iew of the summ aryjudgmen t record. App ly ing the app ropriate stand ards, ou r task is t o d e t e rm in e wh e t h e r I CO N c o n c lu s ive ly e s t a b li s h e d e a c h e le m e n to f it s a f f ir m a t ive d e fe n s e o f re s judicat

a . By nec ess ity , t hat i ncl udes a det er minat ion of w hether the order rend ered bythe district court const itute s a f inal det ermin ation o n the merits. T he su mm ary jud g ment record clear ly establ is hes that the d is tr ic t c our t’ s o rd er of dis mis sal w as based sol ely upon the fai lure of Ro dr ig uezto obtai n leav e of courtto add I CO N as a defendant, and notupon the meri ts of hi s cl aim ag ain st IC ON

. Fur ther more, the dis tr ic t c our t’ s o rd er of dis mis sal w as is sued sua sponte, w ithou t ICON ev er seeking dismissa l or a deter minat ion of the mer it s o f R odr ig uez ’s cl aim. That bei ng the cas e, i t foll ow s t hat t he d i s t r i c t c o u rt ’ s o rd e r c a n n o t s e r v e a s a b a s i s fo r t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e fe n s e o f re s ju dicata

. Beca use ICON ha s n o tconclusively estab lished th e f irst eleme nt of its re s judicat

a defense, the t ri al cour

t er re d i n g ra nti ng su mmary j udg ment.
NewC laim s In the sec ond cas e filed in county cour t, Rod ri g uez als o added cl a im s f o r f ra ud, br each of c ontract , and decl arator y jud g ment in addi ti on to the DTPA and I nsurance Cod e violation s w hich w ere asse rted in th e previous suit. Notw ithsta ndin g the fact th at th ese cl aims co uld hav e been broug ht in the ear li er li ti g ati on, t he s ame co nsi derati ons that bar9

a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e d o c t r i n e o f re s judicat a to the o ri g ina l cl aims als o bar appl ic ati on of the doct rine to th ese claim s. B e c a u s e t h e d o c t r i n e o f re s judicat a has no appl ic ati on to the fa ct s o f thi s c ase, I
w oul d s ust ain poi nt of er ro r one. Du e Pr oces s C laim
A fundamental preceptof common law adj udi cat ion , embodi ed i n the doc tr ine of r es jud ic ata , i s t he c oncep t th a t re s judicat a ca nnot appl y

w hen t he par

ty ag ain st w hom the earlier decision is asserted did n ot have a “f ull a nd fair o ppo rtunity” to litig ate t he issue in the e ar li er

ca se. Mo ntana v. United S tates , 440 U .S. 147, 153, 99 S. Ct . 970 , 973 , 59 L.Ed. 2d 210 (1 979)

. Beca use Rod ri g uezdid not hav e a full and fair opportu nity

to li ti g ate his cl aims ag ain st IC ON , due proces s cons ide ra ti ons shoul d bar appl ic ati on of t he doc tr ine o f re s judicat

a to the fact s o f thi s cas e. Acc ordin g ly , I w oul d al so sus tai n poi nt of er ro r tw o. Conclusion
Accordin gly , I w ould reverse the judgmen t and rema nd th is cause to the trial court for furt her

proceed ing s c onsi ste nt w it h thi s d is sent ing opi nio n.

Pat rick A. Pirtle Justice