1

The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3456

___________

Hunter R. Levi, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri

*

Aerotek, Inc.; Allegis Group, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: April 23, 2010

Filed: May 7, 2010

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Hunter Levi appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of a civil action he brought

under diversity jurisdiction. Upon careful de novo review, see Banks v. Int’l Union

Elec., Elec., Technical, Salaried & Mach. Workers, 390 F.3d 1049, 1052 (8th Cir.

2004) (de novo review of dismissal based on res judicata), we find no basis for

reversing the district court’s dismissal, which relied upon a prior dismissal with

prejudice, see Mo. R. Civ. P. 67.01 (dismissal with prejudice bars assertion of same

cause of action or claim against same party); Denny v. Mathieu, 452 S.W.2d 114, 118
2

Erie R.R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938).

-2-

(Mo. 1970) (en banc) (dismissal with prejudice serves as mechanism for termination

of litigation rather than adjudication of issues therein involved); Vilsick v. Standard

Insulations, Inc., 926 S.W.2d 499, 501 (Mo. Ct. App. 1996) (Rule 67.01 extends res

judicata principles to cases dismissed with prejudice; application of Rule 67.01 does

not require prior adjudication on merits); see also Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.,

487 U.S. 22, 27 n.6 (1988) (state procedural rule may be applied if rule does not

conflict with federal rule and furthers twin goals of Erie2

 doctrine: avoiding

inequitable administration of laws and discouraging forum shopping).

In addition, we note that the remaining applicable res judicata principles are

satisfied, because the prior dismissal was based on proper jurisdiction with respect to

the state law claims raised in the present case; the prior case involved causes of action

centered on the same factual bases as the causes of action in the present case, see

Chesterfield Village, Inc. v. City of Chesterfield, 64 S.W.3d 315, 318-19 (Mo. 2002)

(en banc) (definition of “cause of action” centers on facts that form or could form

basis of previous adjudication; when determining whether party asserts same claim

in two cases, court looks to factual bases for claims, not legal theories); and both suits

involved the same parties or privies, see Lomax v. Sewell, 50 S.W.3d 804, 809 (Mo.

Ct. App. 2001) (privity, as basis for satisfying “same party” requirement of res

judicata, is premised on proposition that interests of party and non-party are so closely

intertwined that non-party can fairly be considered to have had his or her day in

court); see also McDonald v. Johnson & Johnson, 776 F.2d 767, 769-70 (8th Cir.

1985) (in diversity actions, res judicata is matter of substantive law, requiring

application of state law); Anderson v. Waddles, 474 F. Supp. 2d 1116, 1118 (E.D. Mo.

2007) (setting forth res judicata principles under Missouri law).

Accordingly, we affirm. See Phipps v. FDIC, 417 F.3d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir.

2005) (court may affirm on any basis supported by record).