ROSTRO V. EDDY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in
the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions
on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this
electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other
deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and
does not include the filing date.
BOB ROSTRO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
EDDY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant-Appellee.
COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY, Lee A.
Kirksey, District Judge
C. Barry Crutchfield, Lovington, NM, for
Appellant
Jackson Lewis P.C., Danny W. Jarrett,
Albuquerque, NM, for Appellee
J. MILES HANISEE, Judge. WE CONCUR: M.
MONICA ZAMORA, Judge, EMIL J. KIEHNE, Judge
{1} Plaintiff has
appealed from an order dismissing his claims with prejudice. We previously
issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm.
Plaintiff has filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered.
Because we remain unpersuaded, we affirm.
{2} Plaintiff continues
to argue that the federal court’s dismissal of his prior complaint with
prejudice should not have been given res judicata effect, because it was not a
determination on the merits. [MIO 2-3] However, it is well established that “a
dismissal with prejudice is an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res
judicata.”
Hope Cmty. Ditch Ass’n v. N.M. State Eng’r,
2005-NMCA-002, ¶
10,
136 N.M. 761,
105 P.3d 314;
see Kirby v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.
of Am.,
2010-NMSC-014, ¶ 66,
148 N.M. 106,
231 P.3d 87 (“[W]hen a claim has
been dismissed with prejudice . . . a final valid judgment on the merits[] will
be presumed so as to bar a subsequent suit against the same defendant by the
same plaintiff based on the same transaction.”);
State of N.M. Uninsured
Empl’rs’ Fund v. Gallegos,
2017-NMCA-044, ¶ 34, 395 P.3d 533 (observing
that a prior dismissal with prejudice functions as an adjudication on the
merits and has res judicata effect);
Pielhau v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.
Co.,
2013-NMCA-112, ¶ 10,
314 P.3d 698 (“A dismissal with prejudice is an
adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata.” (alteration, internal
quotation marks, and citation omitted)).
{3} We understand
Plaintiff to contend that we should arrive at a different result in this case
because the federal district court did not consider the validity of his claims.
[MIO 2-3] However, this is not a requirement. “Res judicata bars not only
claims that were raised in the prior proceeding, but also claims that could
have been raised.”
City of Sunland Park v. Macias,
2003-NMCA-098, ¶ 18,
134 N.M. 216,
75 P.3d 816;
see Potter v. Pierce,
2015-NMSC-002, ¶ 1,
342
P.3d 54 (“Res judicata is a judicially created doctrine designed to promote
efficiency and finality by giving a litigant only one full and fair opportunity
to litigate a claim and by
precluding any later claim that could have, and
should have, been brought as part of the earlier proceeding.” (emphasis
added)).
{4} Plaintiff also
reiterates his assertion that he did not have the opportunity to litigate the
underlying claims in the course of the prior proceedings. [MIO 3]
See Potter,
2015-NMSC-002, ¶¶ 1, 10 (observing that in addition to the enumerated elements,
“res judicata will preclude a . . . claim only if the claim reasonably could
and should have been brought during the earlier proceeding” and this “rests on
the prior opportunity to litigate” the claim in the course of the prior
proceedings). However, Plaintiff provides no further explanation for his
position. As we previously observed, it appears that all of the claims are
related, and they could and should have been brought in the prior action. [CN
4]
See Williams v. Mann,
2017-NMCA-012, ¶ 13,
388 P.3d 295 (citing
federal statutory law establishing that in civil actions over which the federal
district courts have original jurisdiction, they also have supplemental
jurisdiction over all other claims that form part of the same case or
controversy);
see also Deflon v. Sawyers,
2006-NMSC-025, ¶ 11,
139 N.M. 637,
137 P.3d 577 (discussing the federal courts’ supplemental
jurisdiction over state law claims asserted in conjunction with federal
claims). As a result, we remain unpersuaded.
{5} Accordingly, for
the reasons stated in our notice of proposed summary disposition and above, we
affirm.