Opinion ID: 2807460
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Overarching Equity

Text: We also reject Ideker’s assertion that “[t]he District Court erred in solely addressing the issue of whether it can apply collateral estoppel, without considering whether it should apply collateral estoppel given considerations of equity and fairness.” See James, 49 S.W.3d at 683 (“The doctrine of collateral estoppel will not be applied where to do so would be inequitable.”). In Ideker’s view, the district court initially recognized it was inequitable to apply collateral estoppel because the district court “incorrectly” predicted Missouri law but applied collateral estoppel anyway—unfairly depriving Ideker of a judicial forum for her claims. We disagree. Assuming Missouri requires some overarching requirement of equity or fairness, we discern no fundamental unfairness in applying collateral estoppel to the facts of this case. Ideker cannot remedy her failure to appeal the district court’s dismissal by filing a second suit based on the same claim. See Baltimore S.S. Co. v. Phillips, 274 U.S. 316, 325 (1927) (“A judgment merely voidable because based upon an erroneous view of the law is not open to collateral attack, but can be corrected only by a direct review and not by bringing another action upon the same cause.”). “An unappealed final judgment is conclusive of the matters adjudicated, and cannot be challenged in a separate proceeding.” Freeman v. Leader Nat’l Ins. Co., 58 S.W.3d 590, 598 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001); see also In re Scarborough, 171 F.3d at 642 -8- (deciding a plaintiff who did not appeal alleged legal mistakes in a prior action could not “‘bring a subsequent action challenging a legal ruling in a prior action’” (quoting Sil-Flo, Inc. v. SFHC, Inc., 917 F.2d 1507, 1521 (10th Cir. 1990))). The district court correctly decided it was not inequitable to bar Ideker from relitigating the district court’s decision that it lacked statutory authority to hear her claim. See Sexton, 152 S.W.3d at 274 (“‘Public policy dictates that there be an end of litigation; that those who have contested an issue shall be bound by the result of the contest; and that matters once tried shall be considered forever settled as between the parties.’” (quoting Baldwin v. Iowa State Traveling Men’s Ass’n, 283 U.S. 522, 525 (1931))).