Opinion ID: 2670997
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard and Scope of Review, Res Judicata Law

Text: We review de novo the district court’s conclusion that res judicata bars Plaintiffs’ claims. See Valley View Angus Ranch, Inc. v. Duke Energy Field Servs., Inc., 497 F.3d 1096, 1100 (10th Cir. 2007). We limit our review of FNBW’s motion to dismiss to the complaint’s allegations, its exhibits, and the Tri-State I record. The district court properly took judicial notice of the latter. See Tal v. Hogan, 453 F.3d 1244, 1264 n.24 (10th Cir. 2006). FNBW bears the factual burden on the res judicata affirmative defense. See Nwosun v. Gen. Mills Rests., Inc., 124 F.3d 1255, 1257 (10th Cir. 1997). “Generally res judicata is an affirmative defense to be pleaded in the defendant’s answer. However, when all relevant facts are shown by the court’s own records, of which the court takes notice, the defense may be upheld on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion without requiring an answer.” Day v. Moscow, 955 F.2d 807, 811 (2d Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). As for the applicable law, [w]ithin the res judicata framework, this court applies federal law to determine the effect of a previous federal judgment, even if that judgment was issued in a case based on diversity jurisdiction. However, the best federal rule for the claim-preclusive effect of a federal diversity judgment is to adopt the law that would be applied by state courts in the State in which the federal diversity court sits. -5- Hartsel Springs Ranch of Colo., Inc. v. Bluegreen Corp., 296 F.3d 982, 986 (10th Cir. 2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Kansas law therefore guides our res judicata analysis. The parties advance two versions of the test to determine whether a claim brought in a later action should be precluded under Kansas law. FNBW’s test is: “‘(1) same claim; (2) same parties; (3) claims were or could have been raised; and (4) a final judgment on the merits.’” State v. Martin, 279 P.3d 704, 706 (Kan. 2012) (quoting Winston v. State Dep’t of Soc. & Rehab. Servs., 49 P.3d 1274, 1285 (Kan. 2002)), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 114 (2013). Plaintiffs’ test is: “‘(1) identity in the thing sued for, (2) identity of the cause of action, (3) identity of persons and parties to the action, and (4) identity in the quality of persons for or against whom claim is made.’” Venters v. Sellers, 261 P.3d 538, 546 (Kan. 2011) (quoting Waterview Resolution Corp. v. Allen, 58 P.3d 1284, 1290 (Kan. 2002)). The district court found no “Kansas cases discussing, analyzing or even acknowledging the fact that courts sometimes articulate the test differently,” Aplt. App., Vol. I at 107 n.25, and neither have we. The district court ultimately chose to employ FNBW’s test, agreeing with the Kansas Supreme Court that this version is “‘[m]ost plainly stated.’” Id. (quoting In re Fleet, 272 P.3d 583, 589 (Kan. 2012)). Although Plaintiffs contend this use of the “same claim” test “failed to observe the nuances of claim preclusion law in Kansas,” Aplt. Br. at 13, both tests come from -6- Kansas Supreme Court decisions, and Plaintiffs have not offered case authority to show its test is more appropriate. We see little or no substantive difference between the tests and agree with the district court’s decision to use the more plainly stated one. We note that although Plaintiffs’ version appears to be missing two elements contained in FNBW’s— whether the claim could have been raised before and whether there was a final judgment on the merits—both have been expressed as part of the res judicata analysis in Kansas cases employing Plaintiffs’ version. See, e.g., Venters, 261 P.3d at 546 (“In addition, res judicata requires a prior final judgment on the merits.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Dexter v. Brake, 269 P.3d 846, 852-53 (Kan. App. 2012) (“The doctrine of res judicata (or claim preclusion) prohibits a party from asserting in a second lawsuit any matter that might have been asserted in the first lawsuit.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).