Case: 19-13825 Date Filed: 04/15/2020 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 19-13825
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:19-cv-00001-TCB
TIMOTHY B. BROWN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOC.,
as trustee for As Trustee, Mastr Asset Backed Securities Trust 2006-AB1,
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2006-AB1,
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(April 15, 2020)
Case: 19-13825 Date Filed: 04/15/2020 Page: 2 of 3
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JILL PRYOR and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Brown appeals pro se the dismissal of his complaint against U.S.
Bank National Association and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Brown complained of
negligence by Wells Fargo in implementing the Home Affordable Modification
Program and refusing to modify Brown’s mortgage payments; of a wrongful
foreclosure by Wells Fargo and by U.S. Bank; of conversion by both banks; and of
violations of the Georgia Consumer Fraud Act by both banks. The district court
dismissed Brown’s complaint as barred by res judicata and, in the alternative, for
failure to state a claim for relief, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). We affirm.
The district court correctly dismissed Brown’s complaint as barred by res
judicata. “Res judicata, or more properly claim preclusion, is a judicially made
doctrine with the purpose of both giving finality to parties who have already
litigated a claim and promoting judicial economy; it bars claims that could have
been litigated as well.” In re Atlanta Retail, Inc.,
456 F.3d 1277, 1284 (11th Cir.
2006). The doctrine applies if “(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.” Ragsdale v. Rubbermaid, Inc.,
193 F.3d 1235, 1238 (11th
Cir. 1999). Brown does not dispute that his present action and an action he filed in
2
Case: 19-13825 Date Filed: 04/15/2020 Page: 3 of 3
2017 against Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank involve the same parties. The two actions
are based on the same factual predicate: the alleged wrongful foreclosure and sale
of his property. Brown complained previously of breach of contract, a wrongful
foreclosure on his property, and of violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and the district court dismissed
the complaint for failure to state a claim, which “unambiguously constitutes a
ruling on the merits.” Borden v. Allen,
646 F.3d 785, 812 (11th Cir. 2011) (internal
quotation marks omitted). In his new complaint, Brown alleges, for the first time, a
claim of negligence for failing to modify his loan payments, but that claim is
“based upon the same factual predicate . . . as [his] former action, [so] the two
cases are really the same claim or cause of action for purposes of res judicata,”
Citibank, N.A. v. Data Leasing Fin. Corp.,
904 F.2d 1498, 1503 (11th Cir. 1990).
Brown’s new legal theory is rooted in the actions Wells Fargo took leading up to
and during foreclosure. See Jaffree v. Wallace,
837 F.2d 1461, 1468 (11th Cir.
1988) (“Res judicata . . . extends not only to the precise legal theory presented in
the previous litigation, but to all legal theories and claims arising out of the same
operative nucleus of fact.”).
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Brown’s complaint.
3
