Opinion
Civil No. 11-1414 (SEC).
December 12, 2011.
OPINION and ORDER
Before the Court are defendant' ("Defendant") motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) (Docket # 9), and plaintiffs' ("Plaintiffs") opposition thereto (Docket # 18). After reviewing the record and the applicable law, Defendant's motion is GRANTED.
Background
After a four-year long foreclosure litigation in state court, on the verge of an imminent ejection, Plaintiffs filed this suit seeking redress for damages allegedly suffered during the state proceedings. Docket # 2. Although Plaintiffs' complaint fails to explicitly state the legal predicate under which it arises, the factual allegations are uncomplicated. In fact, the following remarks from Plaintiffs' complaint neatly capture the essence of their factual allegations:
The defendant Bank, by its official legal representation in Civil Case number ECD2007-0432 filed in the Superior Court of Puerto Rico, Caguas Part, entered and followed a premeditated and conscientious incommunication [sic] scheme to prevent and disallow the herein plaintiff, therein defendant, to exercise, to his sole discretion, those measures and efforts to save his proprietary interest in the aforementioned property, be it by seeking financing with another Bank, obtaining a loan from other sources, renting the property with a purchase option, bartering, selling it or even filing for Bankruptcy relief.
Docket # 2, ¶ 26.
After preliminary procedural nuances, Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on res judicata grounds, among other things. Docket # 9. To support their motion, Defendant has provided the Court with record entries of the foreclosure proceedings showing that the state court rejected, after a hearing, the same allegations now pending before this Court. Docket # 14. Defendant has also supplemented the record with copies of notifications issued by the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals and the Puerto Rico Supreme Court denying certiorari and reconsideration petitions Plaintiffs filed in each of those forums challenging the state court decision. Id. Plaintiffs, however, oppose these contentions, arguing that res judicata is inapplicable to this case. Docket # 18.
Standard of Review
Applicable Law and Analysis
In re Colonial Mortgage Bankers Corp.324 F.3d 1216Id. Cromwell v. Sac County 94 U.S. 351352see also Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc., v. University of Illinois Foundation402 U.S. 313329Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. Shore439 U.S. 322Kale v. Combined Ins. Co. of America924 F.2d 1161 1164 Id.
The policy behind the doctrine of res judicata, is "to relieve [the] parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication." Apparel Art Intern. v. Amertex Enters. Ltd., 48 F.3d 576, 583 (1st Cir. 1995). The doctrine is "no mere matter of practice or procedure, but a rule of fundamental and substantial justice, of public policy and of private peace, which should be cordially regarded and enforced by the courts." Kale, 924 F.2d at 1168 (internal quotations marks omitted). Therefore, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has mandated a steadfast adherence to the doctrine. Id. ("Any idiosyncratic unfairness that may result from the consistent and straightforward application of preclusion principles is ... far outweighed by the systemic benefits which flow from steadfast adherence to so salutary a doctrine."). In fact, although the First Circuit has recognized that an occasional exception to the rule may exist in order to prevent "unusual hardship," it has yet to find a specific instance where it would apply. Id.; see also Rose v. Town of Harwich, 778 F.2d 77, 82 (1st Cir. 1985) ("If, as the Restatement suggests, there may nonetheless be an occasional exception to prevent unusual hardship, this case does not fall within it. This is not a case in which the plaintiff has `clearly and convincingly shown that the policies favoring preclusion of a second action are overcome for an extraordinary reason.'") (citations omitted).
Three elements are required to establish res judicata: (1) that there is a final judgment on the merits in a prior action; (2) that the parties in the prior and the subsequent action are sufficiently identical; and (3) that the causes of action in the two cases are sufficiently identical. Breneman v. U.S. ex rel. F.A.A., 381 F.3d 33, 38 (1st Cir. 2004).
In this case, Defendant's contentions are correct. A cursory review of the record shows that all the elements of the res judicata doctrine concur in this case—i.e., the same parties litigated the same claims in a prior proceeding that resulted in a final judgment on the merits. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.
Conclusion
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DISMISSED with prejudice.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 12th day of December, 2011.