Opinion ID: 8704900
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Wrongful Foreclosure Claim Against Aurora

Text: Aurora asserts that the plaintiffs wrongful foreclosure claim is barred by the claim preclusion doctrine. See Lender Defs.’ Mem. at 19. “Under the doctrine of claim preclusion ..., a valid final judgment on the merits absolutely bars the same parties from relitigating the same claim in a subsequent proceeding.” Parker v. Martin, 905 A.2d 756, 762 (D.C.2006) (citation omitted). 2 “A final judgment on the merits embodies all of a party’s rights arising out of the transaction involved, and a party will be foreclosed from later seeking relief on the basis of issues which might have been raised in the prior action.” Id. (citation omitted). In applying the doctrine, District of Columbia courts “consider ‘(1) whether the claim was adjudicated finally in the first action; (2) whether the present claim is the same as the claim which was raised or which might have been raised in the prior proceeding; and (3) whether the party against whom the plea is asserted was a party or in privity with a party in the prior case.’ ” Elwell v. Elwell, 947 A.2d 1136, 1140 (D.C.2008) (citation omitted). Here, it is clear from the face of the complaint that all the requirements of claim preclusion are satisfied. First, it is undisputed that the ruling of the Superior Court’s Landlord Tenant Branch granting Aurora’s motion for summary judgment and declaring Aurora in lawful possession of the Property constitutes a final judgment on the merits. See Compl. ¶ 19. Second, the plaintiffs wrongful foreclosure claim in this case could have been raised as a defense in the Superior Court action, as the claim challenges Aurora’s ownership interest in the Property and thus its “authority to maintain the ... Landlord Tenant action against [p]laintiff ’ in the Superior Court. Id. ¶ 31; see Henderson v. Snider Bros., Inc., 439 A.2d 481, 486 (D.C.1981) (en banc) (“The grounds asserted in the complaint here could have been a good defense to the foreclosure. Having failed to raise the defense, [the plaintiffs] are now barred from raising it here as a separate cause of action.”) (construing Maryland law); Threatt v. Winston, 907 A.2d 780, 782 n. 3 (D.C.2006) (“[T]he prior judgment established that [the defendant] was entitled to possession of the apartment, and, as a result, the court issued process authorizing the eviction. [The plaintiff] therefore cannot succeed in his claim of wrongful eviction without nullifying the initial judgment or impairing rights established in the initial action. So long as it remains undisturbed, the prior judgment precludes [the plaintiffs] new claim.”). Third, Aurora and the plaintiff were parties both to this case and the Superior Court action. The plaintiff argues that her wrongful foreclosure claim against Aurora is not barred because the Superior Court struck “her plea of title defense and jury demand ... as a sanction for [her] fail[ure] to make certain protective order payments,” and, consequently, “the claims arising from [her] plea of title defense were not adjudicated in the Landlord Tenant case.” Pl.’s Lender Defs. Opp’n at 14-15. This argument misconstrues basic concepts of claim preclusion. Whether the plaintiffs wrongful foreclosure claim was actually adjudicated in the Superior Court action is immaterial; what matters is that the plaintiff could have raised the claim before the Superior Court. See Patton v. Klein, 746 A.2d 866, 870 (D.C.1999) (“The [claim preclusion] doctrine operates to bar in the second action not only claims which were actually raised in the first, but also those arising out of the same transaction which could have been raised.”). The plaintiff concedes that she did raise her wrongful foreclosure allegations in the Superior Court, but that the claim was stricken as a result of her failure to make agreed-upon payments. In other words, she had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the claim but squandered that opportunity by failing to comply with her court-imposed obligations. This Court is no position to second guess the Superior Court’s imposition of sanctions on the plaintiff or its ruling granting summary judgment to Aurora.