Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ABBAS YAZDCHI and §

HABIBOLLAH YAZDCHI, §

§

Plaintiffs, §

v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-0737-L

§

AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP. §

and DALLAS AUTO AUCTION, §

 §

Defendants. §

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

On August 11, 2005 at 9:00 a.m., the court held a hearing in this case on Ali Yazdchi’s

“Petition in Intervention and Unopposed by Plaintiffs,” filed pro se on June 13, 2005 (hereinafter

“Motion to Intervene”). At the hearing, the court heard argument from Ali Yazdchi, appearing pro

se, and from counsel for Defendants American Honda Finance Corp. (“AHFC”) and Dallas Auto

Auction (“DAA”) (collectively, “Defendants”) regarding Ali Yazdchi’s Motion to Intervene.

Having carefully considered the oral argument, Ali Yazdchi’s Motion to Intervene, AHFC’s

Response to Complaint in Intervention of Ali Yazdchi and Brief in Support of its Response to

Complaint in Intervention of Ali Yazdchi and exhibits attached thereto, filed June 29, 2005, and

DAA’s Response in Opposition to Ali Yazdchi’s Motion/Petition in Intervention, and Motion to

Dismiss, and Memorandum in Support and exhibits thereto, filed June 29, 2005, along with the

record and the applicable law, the court determines that Ali Yazdchi’s Motion to Intervene should

be denied. 

I. Factual Background and History

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00737-L Document 24 Filed 08/12/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 274
Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 2

Abbas Yazdchi and Habibollah Yazdchi (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against AHFC and

DAA on March 16, 2005, in the 160th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas. Plaintiffs allege

that Defendants engaged in fraudulent, misleading, and deceptive acts or practices in connection

with Plaintiffs’ purchase of twenty-one used vehicles from the summer of 1997 through the end of

1999. See Pl.’s Orig. Pet. at ¶ 6. Plaintiffs have asserted claims against Defendants for violations

of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, for breach of contract and breach of express and implied

warranties, and also request exemplary damages as well as rescission of the sale transaction. See

id. at ¶¶ 14-23. On April 15, 2005, Defendants removed the case to this court under 28 U.S.C. §

1332.

Prior to the filing of this case, on December 29, 2003, Ali Yazdchi, along with Al Auto d/b/a

Ahmad Yazdchi, filed suit against AHFC and DAA in the 160th Judicial District Court, Dallas

County, Texas. In that action, the plaintiffs therein made nearly identical allegations involving the

same twenty-one cars and raised the same causes of action against AHFC and DAA. AHFC and

DAA removed that case to federal court. See Al Auto d/b/a Ahmad Yazdchi, Ali Yazdchi v. American

Honda Finance Corp. and Dallas Auto Auction, Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-203-K. On January 15,

2005, the Honorable Ed Kinkeade issued an order dismissing that case with prejudice for discovery

abuses by Ali Yazdchi and Ahmad Yazdchi. Ali Yazdchi and Ahmad Yazdchi have appealed that

decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Notwithstanding that Judge Kinkeade dismissed his action with prejudice against AHFC and

DAA on January 15, 2005, Ali Yazchi has now moved to intervene. Defendants oppose his motion

to intervene. 

II. Analysis

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00737-L Document 24 Filed 08/12/05 Page 2 of 5 PageID 275
2

In addition to opposing the motion to intervene on the grounds of res judicata, DAA also argues that the

intervention should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), 12(e), 9(b), 8, and for failure to comply with Fed.

R. Civ. P. 24. See DAA Resp. at 5-7. As the court is denying Ali Yazdchi’s Motion to Intervene, the court need not

reach these alternative grounds set forth by DAA. Accordingly, the court denies as moot DAA motion to dismiss the

intervention.

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 3

In support of his motion to intervene, Ali Yazdchi states: 

Interven[o]r Ali Yazdchi has perfect reason and ground[s] to

intervene in this lawsuit because Ali Yazdchi has not recover[ed] his

damages[;] also plaintiffs and Interven[o]r have to be together to

recover damages since plaintiffs and interven[o]r bought all the cars

together . . . Ali Yazdchi prays to join the plaintiffs in this case and

recover[] his damages[.]

Motion to Intervene at 1. In opposition to the motion to intervene, Defendants argue in their

respective briefs, among other things, that Ali Yazdchi is barred by principles of res judicata from

seeking to relitigate the claims he already litigated in Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-203-K, which Judge

Kinkeade dismissed with prejudice.2 The court agrees with Defendants. 

Under res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, “a final judgment on the merits bars

further claims by parties or their privies based on the same cause of action.” Montana v. United

States, 440 U.S. 147, 153 (1979). Res judicata “bars all claims that were or could have been

advanced in support of the cause of action on the occasion of its former adjudication . . . not merely

those that were adjudicated.” Nilsen v. City of Moss Point, Mississippi, 701 F.2d 556, 560 (5th Cir.

1983). Accordingly, “one who has a choice of more than one remedy for a given wrong . . . may not

assert them serially, in successive actions, but must advance them all at once on pain of bar.” Id.

For res judicata to apply, four elements must be satisifed:

For a prior judgment to bar an action on the basis of res judicata, the

parties must be identical in both suits, the prior judgment must have

been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, there must have

been a final judgment on the merits and the same cause of action

must be involved in both cases.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00737-L Document 24 Filed 08/12/05 Page 3 of 5 PageID 276
3

Additionally, at the August 11 hearing, when questioned by the court about the applicability of res judicata,

Ali Yazdchi failed to demonstrate to the court that these elements were not satisfied. 

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 4

Intelogic Trace, Inc. v. Ernst & Young, LLP, 200 F.3d 382, 386 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Nilsen, 701

F.2d at 559). All elements are satisfied in this case.3

 

First, Ali Yazdchi, who seeks to intervene in this action, was a Plaintiff in Al Auto d/b/a

Ahmad Yazdchi, Ali Yazdchi v. American Honda Finance Corp. and Dallas Auto Auction, Civil

Action No. 3:04-CV-203-K. Defendants in this case were also the defendants in Civil Action No.

3:04-CV-203-K. Thus, identity of the parties is satisfied. Second, there is no dispute that the prior

judgment was entered by a court of competent jurisdiction, to wit, the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas, where the case had been properly removed by AHFC and DAA.

Third, Judge Kinkeade’s dismissal with prejudice of Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-203-K for repeated

discovery abuses and failure to comply with the court’s orders, despite numerous chances to do so,

has res judicata effect on subsequent federal court actions and operates as final judgment dismissing

the case on the merits for purposes of res judicata. See Dillard v. Security Pacific Brokers, Inc., 835

F.2d 607, 608 (5th Cir. 1988); Matter of Reed, 861 F.3d 1381, 1382 (5th Cir. 1988). Finally, it is

undisputed that the same causes of action are involved in both cases, namely causes of action against

AHFC and DAA arising out of the purchase of twenty-one cars, resulting in Ali Yazdchi claiming

that Defendants violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and that Defendants breached

their contract along with express and implied warranties, and a request for exemplary damages as

well as rescission of the sale transaction. In short, the court determines that Defendants have

established the necessary elements of res judicata, and Ali Yazdchi’s attempt to intervene as a

plaintiff in this case is therefore barred by Judge Kinkeade’s January 15, 2005 dismissal with

prejudice of Al Auto d/b/a Ahmad Yazdchi, Ali Yazdchi v. American Honda Finance Corp. and

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00737-L Document 24 Filed 08/12/05 Page 4 of 5 PageID 277
4

In addition, Ali Yazdchi’s Motion to Intervene should be denied because he has failed to satisfy the elements

of Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. Rule 24(a), which governs intervention of right, provides in relevant part that, “[u]pon timely

application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action . . . (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to

the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the

action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest . . .” Disposition of this

matter would in no way impair or impede Ali Yazdchi’s ability to protect his interest relating to any legally cognizable

claims he has against Defendants relating to the sale of the twenty-one cars at issue, as those interests are already

protected by his filing a lawsuit against DAA and AHFC on December 29, 2003. See Al Auto d/b/a Ahmad Yazdchi,

Ali Yazdchi v. American Honda Finance Corp. and Dallas Auto Auction, Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-203-K. Finally,

even under a liberal construal of Ali Yazdchi’s pro se Motion to Intervene, he has failed to satisfy Rule 24(c), which

requires that the motion to intervene be “accompanied by a pleading setting forth a claim or defense for which

intervention is sought.” For all of these reasons, Ali Yazdchi’s Motion to Intervene should be denied.

Memorandum Opinion and Order – Page 5

Dallas Auto Auction, Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-203-K.4 Even after taking into account that Ali

Yazdchi is appearing pro se, the law, quite simply, does not allow him to intervene in this case in

order to relitigate the same claims involving identical facts against the same defendants that he

already had an opportunity to litigate and protect his rights in Al Auto d/b/a Ahmad Yazdchi, Ali

Yazdchi v. American Honda Finance Corp. and Dallas Auto Auction, Civil Action No. 3:04-CV203-K. Accordingly, Ali Yazdchi’s motion to intervene in this case should be denied. 

III. Conclusion

As set forth above, the law does not permit Ali Yazdchi to have a second bite at the apple

by seeking to intervene as a plaintiff in this case. Based on the foregoing, the court denies Ali

Yazdchi’s Motion to Intervene, filed June 13, 2005. Further, the court denies as moot Defendant

Dallas Auto Auction’s alternative Motion to Dismiss. 

It is so ordered this 12th day of August, 2005.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

 

 Case 3:05-cv-00737-L Document 24 Filed 08/12/05 Page 5 of 5 PageID 278