Opinion ID: 2590922
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Is the federal district court's order a final judgment on the merits?

Text: Rhoten argues her state law negligence claims were not addressed on the merits and did not reach final judgment. She argues Stanfield erroneously interprets federal law because federal courts do not treat a dismissal on jurisdictional grounds as reaching final judgment. Pase and the City argue Rhoten's federal suit proceeded to final judgment on the merits because the federal court granted summary judgment on Rhoten's federal claims. They argue Stanfield correctly applied federal law and should be upheld. The Court of Appeals declined to address whether summary judgment was a final judgment on the merits. Instead, it dismissed the issue, noting the federal district court's decision was affirmed later on appeal. 40 Kan.App.2d at 440-41, 192 P.3d 679. In this respect, the Court of Appeals erred by implying the federal district court's decision was not final for purposes of res judicata while Rhoten's federal appeal was pending. Both federal and Kansas courts have held a pending appeal does not suspend the finality of the lower court's judgment for claim preclusion purposes. Roberts v. Anderson, 66 F.2d 874, 875-76 (10th Cir. 1933) (citing Deposit Bank v. Frankfort, 191 U.S. 499, 24 S.Ct. 154, 48 L.Ed. 276 [1903]); Willard v. Ostrander, 51 Kan. 481, 489-90, 32 P. 1092 (1893) (holding a lower court's judgment remains in full force pending appeal for the purposes of res judicata even though this may work great hardship in some cases). The Stanfield court held [f]ederal courts treat a summary judgment as a judgment on the merits. 263 Kan. at 400, 949 P.2d 602. While the Tenth Circuit does not appear to have directly addressed this issue under federal law, other federal circuits have held summary judgment is a final judgment on the merits for purposes of establishing claim preclusion. See Maher v. GSI Lumonics, Inc., 433 F.3d 123, 127 (1st Cir.2005) (summary judgment is a traditional basis supporting claim preclusion in the second suit); First Pacific Bancorp, Inc. v. Helfer, 224 F.3d 1117, 1128 (9th Cir.2000) (claim preclusion arises from summary judgment); King v. Hoover Group, Inc., 958 F.2d 219, 222 (8th Cir.1992) (summary judgment constitutes final judgment on the merits). In this respect, Stanfield remains consistent with federal law, and the federal district court's summary judgment order should be treated as a final judgment for claim preclusion purposes.