W.A. Griffin M.D. v. Focus Brands Inc. , 685 F. App'x 758 ( 2017 )

Case: 16-13485 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-13485
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-00791-AT
W. A. GRIFFIN M.D.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
FOCUS BRANDS INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(April 13, 2017)
Before MARCUS, JILL PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 16-13485 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 Page: 2 of 6
This appeal requires us to consider when a final judgment is on the merits
for res judicata purposes. More specifically, we must decide whether a final
judgment is on the merits when the district court labeled its dismissal as without
prejudice based on its determination that the plaintiff lacked standing, but we
clarified on appeal that the relevant issue was not jurisdictional. We hold that in
this narrow circumstance the final judgment was on the merits notwithstanding the
district court’s labeling of its dismissal as without prejudice. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s decision to dismiss the claims in this case based on res
judicata.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case arises out of dermatology care that Dr. W.A. Griffin provided to
patient S.D., an insured under a FOCUS Brands, Inc. health plan (the “Plan”). Dr.
Griffin submitted claims for her services to Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia
(“BCBSGA”), the claims administrator for the Plan, and alleges that BCBSGA
underpaid the claims.
Dr. Griffin previously sued FOCUS Brands in district court based on the
alleged underpayment, bringing claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a), for unpaid benefits, breach
of fiduciary duty, civil penalties based on the failure to provide plan documents,
breach of contract, and co-fiduciary liability. The district court granted FOCUS
2
Case: 16-13485 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 Page: 3 of 6
Brands’s motion to dismiss, concluding that Dr. Griffin lacked statutory standing
under ERISA because the Plan barred assignment of claims, and accordingly
dismissed the case without prejudice.
On appeal, we affirmed the district court’s ruling. Although the district
court labeled its dismissal as without prejudice because of its conclusion that Dr.
Griffin lacked standing, we clarified that in this instance statutory standing was not
a question of subject matter jurisdiction “but rather whether [Dr. Griffin] has a
cause of action under the statute.” Griffin v. FOCUS Brands, Inc. (“FOCUS
Brands I”), 635 F. App’x 796, 798 (11th Cir. 2015) (unpublished) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we considered the “district court’s
decision that Dr. Griffin lacked statutory standing to be a determination that she
failed to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Id.
Approximately a month after our decision in FOCUS Brands I, Dr. Griffin
filed a second lawsuit against FOCUS Brands in state court. After FOCUS Brands
removed the case to federal court, Dr. Griffin filed an amended complaint, in
which she repeated her allegations that she had provided services to S.D. and
BCBSGA had underpaid the insurance claims for those services, and again alleged
ERISA claims against FOCUS Brands for unpaid benefits, civil penalties based on
the failure to provide plan documents, and co-fiduciary liability. FOCUS Brands
once more moved to dismiss Dr. Griffin’s claims. The district court granted the
3
Case: 16-13485 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 Page: 4 of 6
motion, concluding that the claims were barred by res judicata, and dismissed them
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). This is Dr. Griffin’s appeal.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review de novo a district court’s determination that a claim is barred by
res judicata. Starship Enters. of Atlanta, Inc. v. Coweta Cty., 708 F.3d 1243, 1252
(11th Cir. 2013).
III. ANALYSIS
Res judicata “bars the filing of claims which were raised or could have been
raised in an earlier proceeding.” Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 193 F.3d 1235,
1238 (11th Cir.1999). The purpose of res judicata is to protect “adversaries from
the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserve[] judicial resources,
and foster[] reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent
decisions.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). A claim will be barred by prior
litigation when: “(1) there is a final judgment on the merits; (2) the decision was
rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the parties, or those in privity
with them, are identical in both suits; and (4) the same cause of action is involved
in both cases.” Id.
We have stated some general rules for determining when a judgment is on
the merits. A dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) is not a judgment on the merits. Davila v. Delta Air
4
Case: 16-13485 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 Page: 5 of 6
Lines, Inc., 326 F.3d 1183, 1188 (11th Cir. 2003). But a dismissal for failure to
state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is a judgment on the
merits. Federated Dep’t. Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 n.3 (1981). We
have further recognized that “[a] dismissal without prejudice is not an adjudication
on the merits.” Hughes v. Lott, 350 F.3d 1157, 1161 (11th Cir. 2003).
Because we concluded in Focus Brands I that Dr. Griffin had failed to state
a claim for relief, the final judgment was on the merits. We acknowledge that the
district court labeled the dismissal as without prejudice, which generally would
cause us to conclude that the judgment was not on the merits. But in the narrow
circumstances of this case, the district court’s label was not binding. The court
specified that it was dismissing the case without prejudice because Dr. Griffin
lacked standing. On appeal in that case, we clarified that the dismissal was better
characterized as for failure to state a claim for relief. Because we affirmed on the
alternative ground that Dr. Griffin failed to state a claim for relief and rejected the
district court’s implicit determination that there was no subject matter jurisdiction,
we conclude that the final judgment in FOCUS Brands I was on the merits. See
Audette v. Sullivan, 19 F.3d 254, 257 (6th Cir. 1994) (considering effect for res
judicata purposes of an appellate decision that affirms a lower court’s decision on
an alternate ground).
5
Case: 16-13485 Date Filed: 04/13/2017 Page: 6 of 6
There is no question that the remaining elements of the res judicata test are
satisfied. Dr. Griffin conceded in the district court that the prior decision was
rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction and the parties were identical in both
suits. In addition, a review of the record shows that all of the causes of action Dr.
Griffin asserted in this case were also raised in FOCUS Brands I. Accordingly, res
judicata applies to bar Dr. Griffin’s claims in this case.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
AFFIRMED.
6