Blocker Farms of Florida, Inc. v. Buurma Properties, LLC

654 F. App'x 402

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: June 13, 2016
• Docket: 14-14641
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Blocker Farms of Florida, Inc. appeals the district court’s grant of Buurma Properties, LLC’s motion for summary judgment based on the affirmative defense of res judicata. Whether res judicata bars a claim is a question of law that we review de novo. 1 Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 193 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th Cir. 1999). In Georgia, “[tjhree prerequisites must be satisfied before res judicata applies—(1) identity of the cause of action, (2) identity of the parties or their privies, and (3) previous adjudication on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction.” Waldroup v. Greene Cty. Hosp. Auth., 265 Ga. 864, 463 S.E.2d 5, 7 (1995); see also O.C.G.A. § 9-12-40. For the third prong of this test to be met, the judgment must be final. See O.C.G.A. § 9-12-40 (“A judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction shall be conclusive ... until the judgment is reversed or set aside.”); Mitchell v. Mitchell, 97 Ga. 795, 25 S.E. 385, 386 (1896) (“It is only a final judgment upon the merits which prevents further contest upon the same issue.... ”).

After the district court issued its order concluding that Blocker Farms’s claim was barred based on res judicata because the parties had previously litigated the issue in the Superior Court of Tattnell County, the Court of Appeals of Georgia vacated the superior court’s judgment and remanded the case to the superior court. Thus, there has not been a previous adjudication on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction. See O.C.G.A. § 9-12-40. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s opinion and remand for further proceedings. 2

VACATED AND REMANDED.

1 .' When giving a state-court judgment preclu-sive effect, we apply the res judicata law of the state whose court rendered the judgment. Kizzire v. Baptist Health Sys., Inc., 441 F.3d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir. 2006).

2 . We note that the district court has the discretion to stay the proceedings pending the parallel state litigation under the abstention doctrine set out in Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 96 S.Ct. 1236, 47 L.Ed.2d 483 (1976). Moorer v. Demopolis Waterworks & Sewer Bd., 374 F.3d 994, 998 (11th Cir. 2004). We express no opinion as to whether now the district court should exercise its discretion.