1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ ___ 3 Fi lin g D at e: Marc h 17 , 201 5 4 N O. 33, 303 5 JAME S A. TURNER and TRACY 6 TUR NER , H usband and Wife, 7 Pl ai nti ff

s- Appe llants , 8 v
. 9 FIRST NEW MEXI CO BANK , 10 De fendant-Appellee. 11 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF LU NACO UN TY 12 J. C . R ob in son , D ist ri ctJu dg e 13 Martin E . T hreet and A ssociates 14 Martin E . T hreet 15 Albuquerque, N M 16 fo r Appe llants 17 Pei fer, Han so n & Mu ll in s, P.A. 18 La uren Ke efe 19 Alb uq ue rque , NM 20 W alker & A ssociates, P. C. 21 Thom as D. W alker 22 Albuquerque, N M 23 for Appellee1 OPIN ION

2 VIGIL, Judge. 3 { 1} T his case r equir es us t o de te rm ine w he the r re s j udi cata , a lso kno w n a s c la im 4 preclusion, bars t he filing of a second lawsuit when a v irtually identical lawsuit wa s 5 pr ev iou sly

dis m iss ed

“ w ith out pr ej udi ce . ” T he dis tr ic t c ourt rul ed that the se co nd s uit 6 is ba rred , and we affi rm . 7 BACKGRO UND 8 { 2} In Oc tober 2010 , Plaintiffs filed a civil c om plaint in the Luna C ount y district 9 co u rt , a n dth e c as e w as as s i g n ed t o J u d g e V i ra m o n t es . I n re s p o n s e t o De fe n d an t ’s 10 m oti on , Judg e V ir am ont es or de re d Pla int if fs to m ak e a m or e de fi nit e state m en t, and 11 Pl ai nti ff

s f ile d an am en de d com

pla int (F ir st Com

pla int ). I n ge ne ra l t er

m s, the F ir st 1 2 C o mp l a i n t a l l e g e d t h a t P l a i n t i f f s p u r c h a s e d a f

a rm a n d b u i l t a d a i r yo n t h e f a rm, 13 fi nanc ed

by loans f

ro m D ef en dant, a nd tha t D ef

en dant s ubse que ntl y

e nga ge d in 14 ac tio ns b y w hic h D ef

en dant atte m

pte d to take co ntr ol an d m an ag em en t of P la int if fs ’ 15 busi ne ss. Co unt

I a lle ge d th at

D ef en dant’ s c our se of

c ondu ct “ be cam e so e gr eg iou s 16 that i t vi olate d th e standard s of goo d f ai th and f

ai r de al ing that are r equir ed by 1 7 [N M SA 1 9 7 8 ,] Se ct i o n 5 5 -1 -3 0 4 [( 2 0 0 5 )] o f t h e U n i fo rm Co m m e r c i a l Co d e[ .]” 18 Count II a lleged that Plaintiffs repaid a loan in full and Def endant failed and refused 19 to r ep ort t o c re dit

r ep ortin g a ge nc ie s th at the lo an ha d be enr ep ai d, w iththe2

1 co nse que nce tha t the loan w as r ep orte d a s be ing pa st d ue , c au sin g dam ag e to 2 Pl ai nti ff

s’ c re dit

. Co unt

I II al le ge d that D ef

en dant’ s co nduc t vi olate d th e standard s 3 of good faith and fair deal i n g re q u i red by the Uniform

Com m ercia l Code and was 4 suf fi ci en tly m al ic iou s, r ec kle ss and w an ton , a s to w ar rant the im

posi tio n of

pun iti ve 5 da m ag es . D ef

en dant the n fi le d a m oti on t o di sm iss the F ir st C om pla int in its e nti re ty 6 for fa i l ur e t o st a t e ac l a i m p ur su a nt t o R ul e 1

- 01 2( B ) ( 6) N M RA
. A f t e r P l a intiffs 7 re spon de d, Jud ge V ir am ont es he ld a he ar ing

. F oll ow ing that heari ng in a July 201 2 8 or de r, Jud ge V ir am ont es gr an te d D ef en dant’ s m oti on an d dis m iss ed ea ch co unt of the 9 First Com

plaint “ without prejudice. ” Judge Viram ontes r easoned that Count I alleged 10 a br ea chof

the “ obl igatio n of

go od fai th” se t f

orth i n S ec tio n 55 -1 -3 04, a nd this 11 se ct ionof

the U nif orm Co m m er ci al Co de doe s not supp ort an in de pe nde nt c au se of 12 ac tio n; tha t C ount

I I al le ge d a vio la tio n of the fe de ra l Fa ir Cr ed it Re portin g A ct , 15 13 U
. S. C. § 16 81 ( 2012 ), and b ec au se the c la im r el at es to Pl ai nti ff

s’ pe rs ona l or 14 consum er loan, feder al lawpreem pts the state law cla im ; and that C ount III alleged 15 a cl ai m

f or pun iti ve dam ag es und er

the U nif orm Co m m er ci al Co de , w hic h do es not 16 pr ov id e fo r an awardof p un it iv e d am ag es . 17 { 3} N o ap pe al w as take n fr om Judg e V ir am ont es ’ s or de r of dis m iss al

. I nst ea d, 18 Pl ai nti ff

s f ile d ane wc om

pla int a ga ins t D ef

en dant i n S ep te m

be r 2012 ( Se co nd 19 Co m pla int ), and this c as e w as a ssi gne d to Jud ge Ro bin son. T he part ie s an d C ount s3

1 I an d I II of

the S ec ond Com

pla int are absol ute ly

ide nti ca l t o th e Fi rs t C om pla int

. 2 Co unt I I is v irtua lly

ide nti ca l, a ddi ng o nly

that D efen dant’ s c ondu ct a s it r el at es to 3 Pl ai nti ff

s’ pe rs ona l or

c on su m er

loan im pa ct ed the ir “ busi ne ss r el at ion shi ps” and 4 “ co m m er ci al cr ed it. ” D ef

en dant fi le d a m oti on to dism iss the S ec ond Co m pla int on 5 gr ound s that Judg e V ir am ont es ’ s orde r dis m iss ing the Fi rs t Com pla int w as bin din g 6 in the c ase under principles of res j udicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel 7 (i ssu e pr ec lus ion ) an d f or the a ddi tio na l r ea son that the S ec ond Co m pla int f ai ls t o 8 state ac la im

upo n w hic h re lie f can be gr an te d. Jud ge Ro bin son ag re ed w ith 9 De fendant and dism issed the Second Com plaint in its en t i retywith prej udice. 10 Pl ai nti ff

s a ppe al

. 11 { 4} T he dis posi tiv e iss ue in thi s c as e is the e ff ec t of the or de r dis m iss ing the F ir st 12 Co m pla int on the S ec ond Co m

pla int

. P la int if

fs arg ue that be ca

use dis m iss al of

the 13 Fi rst C om

pla int w as “ w ith out

pr ej udi ce , ” it ha d no e ff ec t onthe ir

r igh t t o f ile the 14 Second Com

plaint, and Def

endant asserts that dism issal of the S e c on d C om plaint was 15 pr ope r unde r the doc tr ine s of cl ai m pr ec lus ion an d is sue pr ec lus ion

. F or the r ea sons 1 6 w h i c h f

o l l o w , w e a g r e e th a tc l a i m p r e c l u s i o n w a s p r o p e r l y ap p l i e d , an da f f i rm. 17 STA ND AR

D O F REVIE W 18 { 5} The f

acts are undis puted; th eref ore, our reviewof w hether res j udicata applies 19 pr es en ts a qu es ti on of l aw, whi ch we rev i e w de no vo . State ex rel. Pe terson v.4

1 Aram ark Corr. Servs., LLC , 2014 -N MC A -0 36, ¶ 23, 321 P. 3d 128 (“ ‘ Whe n th e fa ct s 2 are not in dispu te, the preclusive effe ct of a prior j udgm ent is a question of law 3 re vie w ed

de nov o. ’ ” ( quot ing R ose tte, I nc . v . U nit ed Sta tes D ep ’t

of the I nte rio r , 4 20 07 -NMCA- 13 6, ¶ 3 1, 1 42 N.M. 71 7, 1 69 P.3d 70 4) ). 5 A N A LY SI S 6 { 6} “ Re s j udi cata[ i. e. , c la im pr ec lus ion ] is de sig ne d to r el ie ve part ie s of the c ost 7 an d vexatio n of m

ult ipl e law sui ts, co nse rv e j udi ci al re sour ce s, pr ev en t i nc onsi ste nt 8 decisions , and encourage reliance on adj udication .” Potter v. Pierce , 2015-NMS C9 002, ¶ 1 0 ,

_

_ _ P. 3d __ _ (No. 34,365, Jan. 8, 2015 ) (a lterations, om issio n, internal 10 quot at ion m ar

ks, and c itatio n om itt ed ); see also Alba v. Hayden , 201 0- N MC A -0 37, 11 ¶ 6, 148 N
. M. 465 , 237 P. 3d 767 (“‘ T he pr inc ipl es of pr ec lus ionope rate to pr om ote 12 fi na lity

in ci vil dis put es by

r el ie vin g part ie s of

the bur de ns o f m

ult ipl e law sui ts, 13 co nse rv ing j udici al r es our ce s, and p re ve nti ng i nc onsi ste nt d ec isi ons. ’ ” ( quot ing 14 Rosette, Inc. , 200 7- N MC A -1 36, ¶ 32 ))

. Cl ai m pr ec lus ion“ bars r el iti ga tio n of the 15 sam e claim betwee n the sam e parties or their privies when the first litigation resulted 16 in a final j udgm ent on the m erits.” D ef lon v . Saw

ye rs , 200 6- N MS C- 025, ¶ 2, 139 17 N
. M. 637 , 137 P
. 3d 5 77 ( int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks and c itatio n om itt ed ). T he party 18 asserting claim

preclusion mus t es tablish th at “ (1) there wa s a final j udgm ent in an 19 earl ie r act io n, (2 ) th e ear li er jud gm en t was on th e m eri ts , (3) th e p a r t i e s in th e two5

1 suits are the sam e, and (4) the cause of ac tion is the sam e in both su its.” Potter , 201 5- 2 N MS C- 002, ¶

10. 3 { 7} W e first address whether the order dism issin g the First Com plaint is a final 4 j udgm ent notwithstand ing th at the dism issal was “ without prejudice.” The order 5 dis m iss ed

the F ir st C om

pla int in its e nti re ty , i t fu lly

dis pose d of

the r igh ts o f the 6 part ie s, and o the rw ise dis pose d of the m atte r to the f

ull es t e xten t po ss ible, w ith out 7 au tho ri zi ng o r spe ci fy ing w he n an am en de d c om pla int c oul d be f

ile d. Mor eo ve r, the 8 or de r de ci siv el y

and f ull y de te rm ine d that Pl ai nti ff s fa ile d to state a ca

use of a ct ion , 9 and an im

m ediate appeal w as neces sary to reverse that determ ination . T he order 10 dis m iss ing the F ir st Co m plain t the re fo re c onst itu te d af ina l j udgm en t un de r our 11 es tabl is he d p rece de nt . See V ill . of Los Ranchos de A lbuq uerque v. Shiveley , 198 9- 12 NMC A- 095, ¶¶ 10-13, 110 N. M. 15, 791 P.2d 466 (conclud ing th at an order 1 3 di s m i s s i n g “ w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e ” f o r l a c k o f s t a n d i n g c o n s t i tu t e d a f i n a l j udgm en t 14 because the order “ term inated the suit and the proceeding was c om pletely dispo sed 15 of so f

ar as the court had power to dispose o f i t ”); B ral le y v. Ci tyof A lbu que rque , 16 1985 -N MCA -043, ¶¶ 11-16, 102 N. M. 715 , 699 P. 2d 64 6 (concludin g that an order 17 of dism issal “ without prejudice” for f ailure to exhaust a dm inistrative rem edies which 18 did no t authorize or specify a definite tim e to file an am ended com plaint was a f

inal 19 j udgm en t be ca

use the or de r fu lly

te rm in at ed an d di spos ed of the c as e be fo re the6

1 co urt)

. I n Sunw es t B ank of A lbu que rque v . Ne lso n , 199 8- N MS C- 012, ¶ ¶ 7- 9, 125 2 N
. M. 170 , 958 P
. 2d 7 40, our S upr em e Co urt e xpr es sly appr ove d Bralleyand V

illage 3 of L os R anc hos and concludeditself that an order of dism issal “ without prejudice” 4 fo r im pr ope r ve nue w as af

ina l or de r be ca

use the or de r “ dis pose d of the m atte r to the 5 fu llest extent pos sible in th e court in which the ac tion was filed. ” S u n w es t B ank

of 6 A lbu que rque , 19 98 -NMSC -0 12 , ¶ 9. 7 { 8} W e ne xt a ddr es s w he the r the or de r dis m iss ing the F ir st Co m pl aint is a 8 j udgm en t “ on the m er its

. ” H er e, D ef en dant f ile d am oti on t o di sm iss pur suant t o R ule 9 1-012(B)(6). Plaintiffs r espond ed in writing to the m otion and then m ade oral 10 arg um en ts i n op posi tio n to the m oti on i n anot ic e he ar ing he ld b ef or e Judg e 11 V ir am ont es . U nde r the se c ir cum stanc es , the “ m er its ” of w he the r the F ir st C om

pla int 12 stated a cause of a ction under Rule 1 -012(B)(6) was f ully and fairly

litigated before 13 Judg e V ir am ont es in ac co rd an ce w iththe due pr oc es s r igh ts o f Pl ai nti ff s to not ic e an d 14 anopp ortun ity

to be he ar d. A cc or din gly , w e con cl ude that the or de r dis m iss ing the 15 co m pla int c onst itu te d ajud gm en t “ on the m er its ” that the F ir st C om pla int f ai le d to 16 st at e a ca us e o f act io n. Se e F ed erate d D ep ’t Sto res, I

nc . v . M oit ie , 452 U
. S. 394 , 399 17 n. 3 ( 1981 ) (“ T he dis m iss al f or f ai lur e to s ta te ac la im

und er F ed er al Ru le of C ivi l 18 Pr oc ed

ur e 12( b) (6 ) is a

‘ j udgm en t onthe m er its

. ’ ” ); A V X Co rp . v. Ca bot

Co rp. , 424 19 F. 3d 2 8, 30 ( 1st

Ci r. 200 5) ( “ O rd inari ly , adis m iss al f or f ai lur e to s ta te ac la im

is7

1 treated a s a dism issal on th e m erits an d t h ere is abund ant case lawto this effect. ”). 2 W e the re fore hold th at the or de r dis m iss ing the F ir st C om pla int c onst itu te s a 3 j udgm en t “ on the m er its ” that i s e nti tle d to c la im pr ec lus ione ff

ec t. 4 { 9} T he re is no dis put e that the la st tw o r equir em en ts f or c la im pr ec lus ion( that the 5 part ie s in the tw o suits ar e the sa m e, an d that the ca use of ac tio n is the s am e in b oth 6 suits ) are s atisfied. W e o nly add that Count II in the First Com plaint wa s dism issed 7 because pree m

ption under the federa l Fair C redit Reporting Act a pplies to personal 8 or consum er loans. T o the extent the m inor changes m ade in the wording of Count II 9 in the Second Com

plaint requires a review of t he m erits, the district court notedthat 10 the com

plaint was filed by

Plaintiffs in their individ u al ca p acities and alleged that 11 Plaintiffs borrowed the m oney in their indiv idual capacities and that Def endant failed 12 to re port to cre dit re portin g age nc ie s th at P la int if fs ha d r ep ai d th e loan. W e al so n ote 13 that the com

pla i n t alleges Plaintiffs w ere personally dam aged. P laintiffs ci te no 14 authorityestablishin g that the m inor c hanges m ade in the w ording to Count II convert 15 w ha t i s othe rw is e a pe rs ona l l oan in to a c om m er ci al loan. T hus, r eg ar dle ss o f the 16 m ino r ch an ge s, Co unt I I re m ai ns p re em

pte d un de r the F ai r Cr ed it Re portin g A ct . 17 { 10} For the foregoing r easons, we hold th at res j udicata (claim preclusion) barred 18 th e fi li ng of t he Seco nd Co m pl ai nt .8

1 CON CLU SION 2 { 11} The ord er o f th e d is tri ctco ur t i s af fir m ed

. 3 { 12} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 5 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , C hi ef Ju dg e 6 I CONCUR:
7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 8 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e
9 TIMOT HY L. GAR CIA , Jud ge (spec ially concu rring).9

1 GAR CIA , Jud ge (spec ially concu rring). 2 { 13} I w ri te to spe ci al ly c onc ur w iththe m aj or ity an d disa gr ee w ith the appl ic at ion 3 of r es j udi catato dis pose of the m er its of

P la int if fs ’ appe al

. Be ca

use I dis ag re e w ith 4 the m aj or ity , I w oul d ho ld th at the dis m iss al of

the F ir st C om

pla int “ w ith out 5 pr e j u d i c e ” b y J u d g e V i r a m o n t e s p r e c l u d e s t h e ap p l i c a t i o n o f r e s j u d i c a t a t o th e 6 Second Com

plaint. How ever, as to the m erits of Plaintiff’ s Second Com plaint, I agre e 7 w ith Judg e Rob ins on’ s alt er na tiv e posi tio n that Pl ai nti ff ’ s Se co nd Com

pla int fa ils to 8 state ac la im

upo n whi ch re lie f can be grante d unde r Ru le 1- 012( B) (6 ). A s ar es ult , 9 the dis m iss al of

the S ec ond Co m

pla int sho uld be a ff irm ed on tha t ba sis

. 10 { 14} T he f

ir st i ssu e is w he th er Judge V ir am ont es ’ s or de r dis m iss ing the F ir st 11 Co m plain t w ith out

pr ej udi ce c onst itu te s af ina l j udgm en t “ on the m er its ” fo r the 12 pur pose s of re s ju dic at a. T he m aj or ity c or re ct ly poi nts out

that c er ta in f ed er al c ourts 13 recognize the application of res j ud i cata to a dism issal without p rej udice under a 14 factu al sc en ar io s im ilar to this c as e. Ma j or ity O pin ion¶

8. H ow ev er , our

appe llate 15 co urts a

ppe ar to dis ag re e w ith thi s fe de ra l posi tio n an d do not appl y the doc tr ine of 16 res j udi cataw he n th e dis tr ic t c ourt, w ith out any spe ci fi c qua lif

ic at ion s or

li m iti ng 17 instru ct ion, utilizes its dis cretion to dism iss a com plaint “ without prejudice. ” See 18 Sunw es t B ank

v . Ne lso n , 199 8- N MS C-01 2 ¶ 7, 125 N
. M. 170 , 958 P
. 2d 7 40 19 (addressing a dism issal without prej udice in the context of finality so as to perm it an10

1 im m ediate appeal but also acknowledging that separate proceedings on the m erits are 2 appropriate and overcom e the doctrine of r es j udicata when cla im s are dism issed 3 without prejudice) ; M

arqu ez v . J uan Ta foy a L and Co rp. , 1981 -N MS C- 080, ¶ 9, 96 4 N
. M. 503 , 632 P
. 2d 7 38 (no tin g th at “ a dis m iss al w ith out

pr ej udi ce c ont em

plate s th e 5 ri ght to f

urthe r pr oc ee din gs” ); W

atk ins v . L oc al S

ch

. B d. , 197 5- N MS C- 048, ¶ ¶ 8, 12, 6 88 N
. M. 276, 540 P
. 2d 2 06 ( re co gni zi ng tha t a dis m iss al w ith out

pr ej udi ce a lon g w ith 7 a lim ited opp ortunityto am end the com plaint within twenty

day s only becam e final 8 and bind ing when no am ended pleadings we re filed within the tim e period allowed); 9 Bankers Trust Co. of Cal. v. Baca , 200 7- N MC A -0 19, ¶ ¶ 9- 10, 141 N
. M. 127 , 151 10 P. 3d 88 (deny ing th e application o f res judicata to the dism issal of a fore closure 11 action without prejudice that was b as ed upon significant inactivi ty by the bank); 12 Sala zar v. Yello w F

reight Sys., I

nc. , 199 0- N MC A -0 03, ¶

¶ 11- 13, 109 N
. M. 443 , 786 13 P. 2d 5 7 ( de ny ing the appl ic at ionof r es j udi catato a re co m

m en de d de ci sio n ari sin g 14 dur ing the fi rs t of tw o wor ke rs ’ c om pe nsa tio n a dm ini str at ive pr oc ee din gs whe re the 15 fi rs t c la im

w as dis m is se d wi tho ut p re j udi ce ); Bralley , 198 5- N MC A -0 43, ¶ 18 16 (rec ogni zing that “ [t] he words ‘ without prejudice’ when used in an order or dec ree 17 ge ne ra lly

ind ic at e that the re ha s be enno r es olu tio n of the c ontro ve rs y

on i ts m er its 18 and leaves the issues in litigatio n open to another suit as i f no action had ever been 19 brough t”); Ch av ez

v . Ch en ow et

h , 197 6- N MC A

- 0 76, ¶

¶ 25- 27, 89 N
. M. 423 , 553 P
. 2d11

1 703 (deny ing th e application of res j udicata to num erous claim s against third parties 2 ar isi ng f

ro m an auto m obi le a cc ide nt tha t w er e dis m iss ed w ith out pr ej udi ce in v ar iou s 3 se parate a ct ion s)

. “ A dis m iss al ‘ w ith out pr ej udi ce ’ giv es the co m pla inant the r igh t t o 4 state ane wand p ro pe r ca use of a ct ion , if he c an , and d oe s no t t ak e aw ay any r igh ts 5 of defense to the ac t ion.” Bralley , 198 5- N MC A -0 43, ¶ 18. Ba se d up on this 6 es ta bli she d pr ec ed en t i n N ewMexi co, the m er its of P la int if fs ’ S ec ond Co m

pla int 7 sh ou ldbe ad dr es se d a ne w. 8 { 15} A s th e m ajor ity

r ec ogni ze d, P la int if

fs ’ S ec ond Co m

pli an t i s id en tic al to the 9 First Com

plaint except for som e m inor additio nal lan g u ag e added to Count II. 10 Ma j or ity O pin ion¶

3. T he m odi fi ed cl ai m s w er e fu lly a ddr es se d by

Jud ge Ro bin son 11 and I agree with his analy sis and th e dism issal of Plaintiffs’ Sec ond Com plaint un der 12 Ru le 1- 012( B) (6 ). T he m ino r w or di ng m odi fi catio n m ad e to C ount I I did not e sta bli sh 13 an issue of fact regarding whether P laintiffs’ indiv idual loan u nder Count II w as 14 pr ee m pte d un de r the f

ed er al Fai r Cr ed it Re portin g A ct . P la int if fs have f ai le d to 15 provide thi s Court with any authority to sup p o rt t h ei r positio n that a personal loan 1 6 im pacting their bus iness re l at i o n s h i p s an dco m m er ci al cr ed i tav o i ds preem ptionunder 17 th e fed eral Fai r Cre di t Re po rti ng Act. Se e Jo jola v . F re se niu s M

ed

. Cl ini c , 201 0- 18 N MC A -1 01, ¶ 7, 149 N
. M. 51, 243 P. 3d 755 (r ec ogni zi ng tha t w he re aparty f ai ls t o12

1 pr ovi de any au tho ri ty fo r an ar gum en t, w e w ill pr es um e that none ex ist s)

. A s ar es ult , 2 the rew ording of Co unt II was also properly dism issed pursuant to Rule 1-012(B)(6). 3 { 16} Fo r the r ea sons state d he re in, I spe ci al ly co nc ur w iththe m aj or ity

and w oul d 4 af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al of P la int if fs ’ S ec ond Co m

pla int

.

5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 6 TI M OT HYL. GA R C IA , Ju dg e