# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 8- 25 27

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Arth ur W ay ne Bro wn

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v.

Kan sa s C it y

Liv e, LLC; Kan sa s C it y

Liv e Ent ert ai nm en t Bl oc k 1 26 , LLC; Down to wn Ir is h P ub , LLC, do in g b us in es s as The Du bl in er; Fir st Res po ns e, In c.; Secu rit y Offic er Ro se nb erg er; Secu rit y Offic er Sp rin ge r; M ik e So sa

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Defe nd an t s -App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - West ern Div is io n

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Apri l 1 6, 2 01 9 Fi le d: Ju ly 25, 2 01 9

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re SHEPHERD, MELLOY, and GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ GRASZ, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

The di st ric t co ur t di sm is se d Arth ur Bro wn’s la wsu it a f t e r co nc lu di ng it was 1
ba rred un de r th e d oc tri ne of r es jud ic at a. W e aff irm.

The Hon or ab le Howar d F. Sach s, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.I. Ba ck gr ou nd

Bro wn’ s l a w su it st em s fro m ev en ts th at oc cu rred at th e Po wer an d Lig ht Dis tri ct in Kans as Cit y , Mis so ur i. Aft er p ur ch as in g a few dr in ks at an ou td oo r ba r, Bro wn so ug ht to en te r th e ba r’s as so ci at ed res ta ur an t to us e th e ba th ro om

. W he n he

cam e ou t, th ree m en to ld hi m he was tre sp as si ng an d ne ed ed to le av e. Bro wn al le ge s th e m en cu rs ed at hi m , us in g raci al sl ur s, an d pu sh ed Bro wn ou t of th e res ta ur an t. Bro wn th en walk ed di rect ly to two ne arb y po li ce of fic ers an d st at ed he wan te d to fil e

a co m pl ai nt . Th e of

fic ers de ta in ed Bro wn at a se cu rit y gu ard off ic e an d e ve nt ua ll y le t h im go , aft er g iv in g h im

a ti ck et for tre sp as si ng

.

Bro wn th en fil ed a cl ai m in Mi ss ou ri st at e co ur t a g a i n st Kan sa s Ci ty Liv e, LLC; Kan sa s Ci ty Liv e Ent ert ai nm en t Bl oc k 12 6, LLC; Down to wn Iri sh Pu b, LLC, do in g bu si ne ss as The Dub li ne r; Fi rs t Res po ns e, In c., Secu rit y Offi cer Ro se nb erg er; Secu rit y Offi cer Sp rin ge r; an d Mi ke So sa (co ll ect iv el y “ K.C. Liv e”) f o r as sa ul t, ba tt ery, fal se im

pr is on m en t, neg li ge nc e, an d m al ic io us pr os ecu ti on

. Afte r Bro wn’s

at to rn ey di d no t ti m el y res po nd to di sc ov ery req ue st s, di d no t res po nd to a m ot io n to

co m pe l, an d vi ol at ed th at co ur t’s or de r di rect in g hi m to res po nd to th e di sc ov ery
req ue st , th e st at e co ur t sa nc ti on ed Bro wn. Afte r co nt in ue d fai lu re by Bro wn’s

a t t o r n ey to pr ov id e res po ns es an d to co m pl y wit h co ur t or de rs , th e st at e co ur t di sm is se d th e cas e wit h pr ejud ic e. Bro wn hi red a ne w at to rn ey an d fil ed a m ot io n to

reco ns id er, wh ic h was de ni ed

.

Bro wn th en fil ed th is su it in fed eral co ur t. Th e co m pl ai nt al le ge d id en ti cal fact ua l al le ga ti on s, bu t so ug ht rel ie f un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 81

. K.C. Liv e fil ed a joi nt

m ot io n to di sm is s, whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d aft er fin di ng th e cl ai m was ba rred by res jud ic at a in li gh t of th e st at e co ur t’s pr io r di sm is sa l wit h pr ejud ic e. Bro wn fil ed a ti m el y ap pe al

.

-2

-II . Anal ys is

“ W e rev ie w de no vo th e di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of a m ot io n to di sm is s fo r fai lu re
to st at e a cl ai m ba se d on res jud ic at a

. . . [an d] acce pt th e pl ai nt iff ’s fact ua l al le ga ti on s

as tru e.” Sc hw ar tz v. Bog en , 91 3 F.3 d 77 7, 78 0– 81 (8 th Ci r. 20 19 ) (it al ic s rem ov ed
, al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng La as e v. Cn ty

. of Is an ti , 63 8 F.3d 85 3, 85 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 )). Res jud ic at a op erat es so th at “ a fin al jud gm en t on t h e mer i t s o f an act io n
pr ecl ud es th e pa rti es or th ei r pr iv ie s fro m rel it ig at in g is su es th at were or co ul d ha ve be en rai se d in th at act io n.” Fed er at ed Dep ’t St or es , In c. v. Mot ie , 45 2 U.S. 39 4, 39 8 (1 98 1)

. Fed eral co ur ts are req ui red “ to gi ve pr ecl us iv e effe ct to st at e-co ur t jud gm en ts whe ne ve r th e co ur ts of th e St at e fro m whi ch th e jud gm en ts em erg ed wou ld do so .” All en v. McCu rr

y , 44 9 U.S. 9 0, 9 6 (1 98 0) (ci ti ng 28 U.S.C. § 1 73 8)

.

A s th e jud gm en t was is su ed by a Mi ss ou ri co ur t, Mi ss ou ri res jud ic a t a l a w
ap pl ie s. Se e Bro wn v. St

. Lo ui s Pol ic e Dep t. , 69 2 F.2 d 39 3, 39 5– 96 (8 th Ci r. 19 82 );

s e e a l s o L aa se , 63 8 F.3 d at 85 6 (“ [T]he la w of th e fo ru m th at ren de red th e fir s t jud gm en t co nt ro ls th e res jud ic at a an al y s i s

. ” )

. Und er Mi ss ou ri la w “ res jud ic at a
ap pl ie s whe re (1 ) ‘the pr io r jud gm en t w a s ren de red by a co ur t of co m pe te nt juri sd ic ti on , (2) th e d eci si on was t he fin al jud gm en t o n t he m eri ts , and (3 ) th e sa m e

cau se of act io n an d th e sa m e pa rti es or th ei r pr iv ie s were in vo lv ed in b o t h c a se s.’”
Ban nu m, In c. v. Ci ty of St

. Lo ui s , 19 5 S.W .3d 54 1, 54 4 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 06 ) (q uo ti ng Bier man n v. Uni te d St at es , 67 F. Su pp

. 2d 10 57
, 10 56 (E.D. Mo

. 19 99 )). Res jud ic at a ba rs rel it ig at io n fr om

th e sa m e “ op erat iv e fac ts gi vi ng ris e to on e or m or e b as es for

su in g” an d ap pl ie s “ to ev ery po in t pr op erl y be lo ng in g to th e s u b je c t m at te r of li ti ga ti on an d whi ch th e pa rti es , ex erci si ng reas on ab le di li ge nc e, m ig ht ha ve br ou gh t fo rward at th at ti m e.” C

h e s t e r f i el d Vil la ge , In c. v. Ci ty of Ch es te rf ie ld
, 64 S.W .3d
31 5, 31 8 (Mo

. 20 02 ) (en ba nc ) (q uo ti ng Ki ng Gen

. Co nt ra ct or s, In c. v. Reo rg an iz ed Ch ur ch of Jes us Ch ri st of La tt er Day Sa in ts , 8 2 1 S

. W. 2 d 49 5, 50 1 (Mo

. 19 91 ) (en ba nc )).

-3

-The re is no real di sp ut e th at th e fir st two el em en ts of res jud ic at a are m et

. The

st at e co ur t ha d juri sd ic ti on

. The st at e co ur t’s de ci si on — whi ch di sm is se d Bro wn’s

cas e wit h pr ejud ic e — was a fin al jud gm en t. In Mi ss ou ri, a di sm is sa l wit h pr ejud ic e is c o n s i d e r e d a jud gm en t “ on th e m eri ts .” Gre as el Co nv er si on , In c. v. Mas sa , 39 9
S.W .3d 45 6, 46 1 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 20 13 ); s e e a l s o Mo

. R. Ci v. P. 67 .01 (s ta ti ng “ [a] di sm is sa l wit h pr ejud ic e ba rs th e as se rti on of th e sa m e cau se of act io n or cl ai m
ag ai ns t th e sa m e pa rty”); W il li ams v. Rap e , 99 0 S.W .2d 55
, 61 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 99 );
Mis so ur i ex rel . W

il le ns v. Gra

y, 75 7 S .W .2d 65 6, 6 58 (Mo . Ct. Ap p. 1 98 8)

.

As to th e th ird el em en t, th ere is no di sp ut e th at th e pa rti es are th e sa m e in bo th

cas es , bu t Bro wn do es arg ue th e pr es en t cas e ari se s fro m a di ffer en t cau se of act io n. We d i s a g ree. “ Sep arat e le ga l th eo rie s are no t to be co ns id ered as se pa rat e cl ai m s ,
ev en if ‘the se ve ral le ga l th eo rie s de pe nd on di ffer en t sh ad in gs of th e fact s, or wou ld

em ph as iz e di ffer en t el em en ts of th e fact s, or wou ld c a l l f o r di ffer en t m eas ur es of li ab il it y or di ffer en t ki nd s of rel ie f.’” Ki ng Gen

. Co nt ra ct or s, In c. , 82 1 S.W .2d at 50 1 (q uo ti ng Si es ta Man or

, In c. v. Cmty Fed

. Sa vs

. & Lo an Ass ’n
, 71 6 S.W .2d 83 5, 83 9 (Mo

. Ct

. App

. 19 86 )); se e al so C h es te rf ie ld Vil la ge , In c. , 64 S.W .3d at 31 9– 20 (s ta ti ng co ur ts lo ok to th e “ fact ua l ba se s fo r th e c l a i m s, no t th e le ga l th eo rie s” an d th at “ [c]lai m pr ecl us io n pr ev en ts reas se rti on of the sa m e cl ai m ev en th ou gh ad di ti on al

or di ffer en t ev id en ce o r le ga l t he or ie s m ig ht be ad va nc ed to su pp or t i t” ).

Bro wn as se rte d in fed eral co ur t th e fact ua l al le ga ti on s ve rb at im fro m hi s st at e

co ur t co m pl ai nt , whi ch was di sm is se d wit h pr ejud ic e. Bro wn arg ue s th e § 19 81 cl ai m is a di ffer en t cau se of act io n fro m th e st at e t o r t l a w c l ai m s be cau se it ha s di ffer en t el em en ts

. W hi le Bro wn is co rrec t th at th e two cl ai m s ha ve di ffer en t el em en ts , fo r th e
pu rp os es of res jud ic at a “ a co ur t lo ok s to th e fact ua l ba se s fo r th e cl ai m s, no t th e le ga l th eo rie s.” Ch es te rf

ie ld Vil la ge , In c. , 64 S.W .3d at 31 9. No ne w fact s were ad de d to th e fed er a l cl ai m an d th e al le ga ti on s in bo th la wsu it s ari se fro m th e sa m e in ci de nt

.

“ In or de r fo r a su bs eq ue nt cl ai m on th e sa m e tra ns act io n to be co ns id ered [a] se pa rat e [cau se o f act io n]

. . . th ere m us t be ne w ul ti m at e fact s, as op po se d to ev id en ti ary

-4

-de ta il s, tha t form a ne w cl ai m fo r rel ie f.” Kes te rs on v. St at e Far m Fir e & Ca s. Co.
,

24 2 S .W .3d 71 2, 7 16 (Mo . 20 08 ) (en ba nc ).

Bro wn ha s as se rte d th e sa m e cau se of act io n ag ai ns t th e sa m e pa rty in fed eral

co ur t th at he di d in th e st at e co ur t , w hi ch ha d juri sd ic ti on an d en te red a fin al jud gm en t. The refo re, t hi s s ui t i s b arre d b y res jud ic at a.

II I. Co ncl us io n

Fo r th e rea so ns set for th he rei n, we af fir m

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-