JOHN J. O'BRIEN, APPELLANT,
v.
BRICKELL TOWNHOUSE, INC., HOWARD P. GROSS, JERRY A. GROSS AND ALAN TELISMAN, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
John O'Brien appealed a summary judgment dismissing his state court action against Brickell Townhouse, Inc. and others on res judicata grounds, based on a prior final judgment in federal court on the identical cause of action. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that the federal judgment constituted an absolute bar to the subsequent state court suit.
The court held that a final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent suit on the same cause of action and is conclusive of all issues which were raised or could have been raised. Since all requirements for res judicata were met and the causes of action were identical, the trial court properly entered summary judgment on the basis of res judicata.
[1] A final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction is an absolute bar to a subsequent suit on the same cause of action.
[2] Res judicata precludes litigants from relitigating the same issues in a different forum.
Previewing 2 of 6 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent suit on the same cause of action and is conclusive of all issues which were raised or could have been raised in the action”
Establishes the foundational principle of res judicata that bars successive litigation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceO'Brien filed suit in Florida state court against Brickell Townhouse, Inc., Howard P. Gross, Jerry A. Gross, and Alan Telisman regarding a 'Deposit Re…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Final Judgment On The Merits cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This appeal comes to the court following the entry of final summary judgment on the basis of res judicata in favor of appel-lees. Appellees raised a final judgment of the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Florida as a bar to the instant cause filed in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida. We affirm.
The law is well settled that a final judgment or decree on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes an absolute bar to a subsequent suit on the same cause of action and is conclusive of all issues which were raised or could have been raised in the action. Mercer v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 551 F.Supp. 233 (M.D.Fla. 1982); Pumo v. Pumo, 405 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So. 2d 469 (Fla.1982); Rhyne v. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority, 402 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 412 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1982).
Litigants are precluded from reliti-gating the same issues not only in the same forum, but in a different forum as well. Bennun v. Board of Governors of Rutgers, 413 F.Supp. 1274, 1278 (D.N.J.1976) (“28 U.S.C. § 1738 extended the Full Faith and Credit provisions of the United States Constitution, Art. 4, § 1, to all courts, federal as well as state”); Mobil Oil Corp. v. Shevin, 354 So. 2d 372 (Fla.1977); AGB Oil Co. v. Crystal Exploration and Production Co., 406 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 413 So. 2d 875 (Fla.1982); Title 28 U.S.C. section 1738. In the instant case, all of the requirements for the application of res judicata have been met. Cf. Husky Industries, Inc. v. Griffith, 422 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
The cause of action was fully litigated in the federal district court. The extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law which form the basis of the final judgment of that court dispose of all of the issues asserted in both complaints. More importantly, the final judgment resolves adversely to the appellant the ultimate issue of the liability of the appellees. Since the cause of action in the state court is identical to the cause of action in the federal court, the trial court was eminently correct in entering a final summary judgment on the basis of res judicata. “Once a party has had an opportunity to litigate a matter in an action in a court of competent jurisdiction, he should not be permitted to litigate it again to the harassment and vexation of his opponent.” New River Yachting Center, Inc. v. Bacchiocchi, 407 So. 2d 607, 609 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), rev. denied, 415 So. 2d 1360 (Fla.1982).
Appellant’s second point on appeal, that the trial court erred in dismissing his original complaint which alleged he was a member of a class of plaintiffs seeking a declaration of their rights under the “Deposit Receipt and Purchase of Sale Agreement,” is now moot.1 The federal court decision resolved these issues between these parties.
Thus, even if we were to decide that the trial court erred in dismissing the class action complaint, something we need not and will not do, the fact remains that appellant has already litigated this claim against the appellees and lost.
Therefore, he is no longer within any putative class which may have claims against the appel-lees. Stabinski v. Pirelli Tire Corp., 371 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Jackson v. Alterman Transport Lines, Inc., 301 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974).
Affirmed.
. Appellant’s amended complaint dropped the class allegations entirely and proceeded in his name individually.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Accent Realty OF Jacksonville, Inc. v. Crudele, 496 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…s raised in his complaint. A final judgment or order on the merits operates as res judicata in a subsequent proceeding between the parties on the same cause of action. Albrecht v. State, 444 So. 2d 8 (Fla.1984); O’Brien v. Brickell Townhouse, Inc., 439 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Sanchez v. Martin, 416 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Similarly, the doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes parties from relitigating issues in a subsequent lawsuit based on a different cause of action. Trucking Employees of No…
-
O'Brien v. Brickell Townhouse, Inc., 457 So. 2d 1123 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. Following the rendition of our opinion, reported O’Brien v. Brickell Townhouse, 439 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), the matter recurred in the trial court on a petition for attorney’s fees filed by Brickell Townhouse pursuant to the provisions of Section 57.105, Florida Statutes (1983). The trial court granted the petition and entered an award…
-
S. Fla. Free Beaches, Inc. v. Reno, 441 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See O’Brien v. Brickell Townhouse, Inc., 439 So. 2d 982 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Vallen James Trumps v. State, 354 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1977)
- NEW River Yachting Ctr., Inc. v. Bacchiocchi, 407 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Husky Indus., Inc. v. Griffith, 422 So. 2d 996 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Anne Pumo v. Pumo, 405 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- AGB OIL Co. v. Crystal Exploration & Prod. Co., 406 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Rhyne v. Miami-Dade Water & Sewer Auth. & Protean Invs., Inc., 402 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Jackson v. Alterman Transp. Lines, Inc., 301 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Stabinski v. Pirelli Tire Corp., 371 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Mercer v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 551 F. Supp. 233 (M.D. Fla. 1982)