In Alabama, "the elements of res judicata are: (1) a prior judgment on the merits; (2) rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) substantially the same parties involved in the prior case are involved in the current case; and (4) the same cause of action presented in both suits." Ex parte Jefferson County, 656 So.2d 382, 384-85 (Ala. 1995); see Lee L. Saad Constr. Co., Inc. v. DPF Architects, P.C., ___ So.2d ___, 2002 WL 31664444, at *7 (Ala. Nov. 27, 2002). If those four elements are present, any claim that was adjudicated or could have been adjudicated in the prior action is barred from further litigation. Equity Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. Vinson, 723 So.2d 634, 636 (Ala. 1998).

However, subsequent cases from our supreme court have reviewed orders denying a motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of res judicata through a petition for writ of mandamus. See Ex parte Jefferson County, 656 So. 2d 382 (Ala. 1995); and Ex parte Sears, Roebuck Co., 895 So. 2d 265 (Ala. 2004). When it last addressed the subject, our supreme court declared that "a petition for a writ of mandamus is an appropriate method by which to seek this Court's review of the denial of a motion to dismiss predicated on the doctrine of res judicata."

The trial court's grant of summary judgment, which was affirmed by the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, clearly constitutes a prior judgment on the merits. Ex parte Jefferson County, 656 So. 2d 382, 385 (Ala. 1995). There is no doubt that both the Circuit Court of Mobile County and the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals are courts of competent jurisdiction; federal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over Real Estate Settlement Procedure Act claims.

In Alabama, “[a] summary judgment acts as a judgment on the merits.” Ex parte Jefferson County, 656 So.2d 382, 385 (Ala.1995) (citing Robinson v. Holley, 549 So.2d 1 (Ala.1989)). In the ejectment action, the state court rendered a judgment on the merits when it granted judgment for MorEquity and against the Dukes.

Under Alabama law, res judicata is proper if the party invoking the doctrine establishes the following four elements: "(1) a prior judgment on the merits; (2) rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) substantially the same parties involved in the prior case are involved in the current case; and (4) the same cause of action presented in both suits." Ex parte Jefferson County, 656 So.2d 382, 384-85 (Ala. 1995); see also Trustmark Ins. Co. v. ESLU, Inc., 299 F.3d 1265, 1269 (11th Cir. 2002) ("A party seeking to invoke res judicata must show that the prior decision (1) was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) was final; (3) involved the same parties or their privies; and (4) involved the same causes of action."). If those elements are present, then any claim that was or could have been adjudicated in the prior action is barred.

See Marrese v. Am. Acad. Of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 380 (1985). In Alabama, "the elements of res judicata are: (1) a prior judgment on the merits; (2) rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) substantially the same parties involved in the prior case are involved in the current case; and (4) the same cause of action presented in both suits."Ex parte Jefferson County, 656 So.2d 382, 384-85 (Ala. 1995);see Lee L. Saad Constr. Co., Inc. v. DPF Architects, P.C., 851 So.2d 507, 2002 WL 31664444, at *7 (Ala. Nov. 27, 2002). If those four elements are present, any claim that was adjudicated or could have been adjudicated in the prior action is barred from further litigation.

In Alabama, "the elements of res judicata are: (1) a prior judgment on the merits; (2) rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) substantially the same parties involved in the prior case are involved in the current case; and (4) the same cause of action presented in both suits." Ex parte Jefferson County, 656 So.2d 382, 384-85 (Ala. 1995); see Lee L. Saad Constr. Co., Inc. v. DPF Architects. P.C., 851 So.2d 507, 517 (Ala. 2002). If those four elements are present, any claim that was adjudicated or could have been adjudicated in the prior action is barred from further litigation. Equity Res. Mgmt. Inc. v. Vinson, 723 So.2d 634, 636 (Ala. 1998); see Lee L. Saad, 851 So.2d at 517.

"A petition for a writ of mandamus is an appropriate method by which to seek this Court's review of the denial of a motion to dismiss or for a summary judgment predicated on the doctrine of res judicata. Ex parte LCS Inc., 12 So. 3d 55, 56 (Ala. 2008) (citing Ex parte Sears, Roebuck & Co., 895 So. 2d 265 (Ala. 2004) ). See also Ex parte Jefferson Cnty., 656 So. 2d 382 (Ala. 1995)." ‘The standard governing our review of an issue presented in a petition for the writ of mandamus is well established:

"A petition for a writ of mandamus is an appropriate method by which to seek this Court's review of the denial of a motion to dismiss or for a summary judgment predicated on the doctrine of res judicata. Ex parte LCS Inc., 12 So.3d 55, 56 (Ala. 2008) (citing Ex parte Sears, Roebuck & Co., 895 So.2d 265 (Ala. 2004)). See also Ex parte Jefferson Cnty., 656 So.2d 382 (Ala. 1995). " 'The standard governing our review of an issue presented in a petition for the writ of mandamus is well established:

A petition for a writ of mandamus is an appropriate method by which to seek this Court's review of the denial of a motion to dismiss or for a summary judgment predicated on the doctrine of res judicata. Ex parte LCS Inc., 12 So.3d 55, 56 (Ala.2008) (citing Ex parte Sears, Roebuck & Co., 895 So.2d 265 (Ala.2004)). See also Ex parte Jefferson Cnty., 656 So.2d 382 (Ala.1995). “The standard governing our review of an issue presented in a petition for the writ of mandamus is well established: