Court Opinion

ID: 9576872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:29:36.976565+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:19:06.540932
License: Public Domain

Judge TURSI,
specially concurring.
I agree that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed, but I reach that conclusion on different grounds and therefore write separately.
I agree with the majority’s holding that a judgment in the small claims court may preclude a later action filed in district court.
Res judicata operates as a bar to a second action on the same claim as one litigated in a prior proceeding when there is a final judgment, identity of subject matter, claims for relief, and parties to the action. City & County of Denver v. Block 17S Associates, 814 P.2d 824 (Colo.1991). Res judicata not only bars issues actually decided, but also issues that should have been raised in the first proceeding but were not. Pomeroy v. Waitkus, 183 Colo. 344, 517 P.2d 396 (1973). The doctrine is one of claim preclusion.
The purpose of the res judicata doctrine is to put an end to litigation between the same parties concerning the same controversy by ensuring the finality of a previous decision. C.F. & I. Steel Corp. v. Chames, 637 P.2d 324 (Colo.1981).
Here, plaintiff chose to split her claims against defendant, rather than bring all related claims in a court of general jurisdiction. However, I am not persuaded that the record supports a holding that the defendant did in fact properly place the affirmative defense of res judicata before the district court.
As the record demonstrates, the plaintiff placed the prior adjudication into these proceedings for purpose of offensive collateral estoppel of certain issues by listing it as an exhibit. The defendant objected to its introduction into the record as a matter not properly before the court, stating that, if admitted, “it would affect how we approach the trial today.” The court then questioned whether collateral estoppel was the applicable doctrine and asked for briefs on the question of res judicata. Defendant did not seek permission to amend and include the affirmative defense of res judicata.
Thus, as the plaintiff contends, and the defendant addresses, the dispositive issue before us is whether the district court had authority to raise and rule on the issue sua sponte. I would so hold.
In addressing the right of the courts sua sponte to raise the issue of res judicata, I find persuasive the holding in McClain v. Apodaca, 793 F.2d 1031, 1032 (9th Cir.1986):
The doctrine of res judicata ensures finality of decisions, conserves judicial resources, and protects litigants from multi-*475pie law suits.... It is consistent with these principles to permit a court which has been apprised by the plaintiff of an earlier decision arising out of the same contract upon which the action before the court is based, to examine the res judicata effect of that prior judgment sua sponte.
I conclude it is within the inherent authority of courts to raise the issue of res judicata sua sponte; therefore, this court need not address defendant’s failure timely to raise such defense.
In fact, had the trial court not done so, I would hold that this court, should in order to conserve judicial resources, so do. See McClain v. Apodaca, supra. See also Super Valu Stores v. District, 906 P.2d 72 (Colo.l995)(trial court has discretion to permit amendments to pleadings in proceedings subsequent to remand).
Hence, I agree that the judgment should be affirmed.