Opinion ID: 4539951
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pleading Res Judicata

Text: Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(c), 12, and 15 prescribe the processes for raising aﬃrmative defenses and considering untimely aﬃrmative defenses. We start with Rule 8(c), which states in relevant part: “In response to a pleading, a party must aﬃrmatively state any avoidance or aﬃrmative defense, including … res judicata.” The proper way to seek a dismissal based on an aﬃrmative defense under most circumstances is not to move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Rather, the defendant should answer and then move under Rule 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings. Carr v. Tillery, 591 F.3d 909, 913 (7th Cir. 2010), citing Forty One News, Inc. v. County of Lake, 491 F.3d 662, 664 (7th Cir. 2007), and McCready v. eBay, Inc., 453 F.3d 882, 892 n.2 (7th Cir. 2006); see also Amy St. Eve & Michael A. Zuckerman, The Forgotten Pleading, 7 Fed. Cts. L. Rev. 152, 172 (2013). The same goes for summary judg‐ ment. See Jackson v. Rockford Housing Auth., 213 F.3d 389, 392– 93 (7th Cir. 2000); Venters v. City of Delphi, 123 F.3d 956, 968 (7th Cir. 1997). Failure to follow this process may “deprive[] 8 No. 19‐1360 the opposing party of precisely the notice that would enable it to dispute the crucial issues of the case on equal terms.” Har‐ ris v. Secretary, U.S. Depʹt of Veterans Aﬀairs, 126 F.3d 339, 343 (D.C. Cir. 1997); see also Blonder‐Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313, 350 (1971) (pur‐ pose of Rule 8(c) is to give opposing party notice of aﬃrma‐ tive defense and opportunity to contest it). We have carved out a narrow and pragmatic exception if the availability of a defense is apparent in the plaintiﬀ’s com‐ plaint itself. E.g., Muhammad v. Oliver, 547 F.3d 874, 878 (7th Cir. 2008); see also Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, et al., 5B Federal Practice & Procedure § 1357 (3d ed. 2019). Be‐ cause public records from previous litigation may be consid‐ ered in a motion to dismiss, General Electric Capital Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1080–81 (7th Cir. 1997), it is sometimes possible to resolve a res judicata defense on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. E.g., Czarniecki, 633 F.3d at 548. That ex‐ ception does not apply here. The defendants had already an‐ swered the earlier complaint, there are factual disputes re‐ garding the timeliness of the defense, and the defense de‐ pends on evidence outside the pleadings.