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

Case: 14-14641 Date Filed: 06/13/2016 Page: 1 of 3
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 14-14641
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:13-cv-00068-BAE-GRS
BLOCKER FARMS OF FLORIDA, INC.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
BUURMA PROPERTIES, LLC,
Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
________________________
(June 13, 2016)
Before JORDAN, JULIE CARNES and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 14-14641 Date Filed: 06/13/2016 Page: 2 of 3
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, “[t]hree 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., 463 S.E.2d 5, 7 (Ga. 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, 25 S.E. 385, 386 (Ga. 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.
1
When giving a state-court judgment preclusive 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
Case: 14-14641 Date Filed: 06/13/2016 Page: 3 of 3
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.
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 (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.
3