WILLIAM H. STEELE, Chief Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs' "Leave for a Motion to Determine who among the Parties of this Litigation has the Superior Title to the Property" (doc. 97), defendant City of Satsuma's Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 99), the Harless defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (doc. 104), and the Harless defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (doc. 105). These Motions have been extensively briefed and are now ripe for disposition.
Plaintiffs, Reginald Johnson and Shirley A. Johnson-Young, siblings who are proceeding pro se, brought this action asserting claims for federal civil rights violations (among others) against defendants, City of Satsuma (the "City"), MKH Properties, LLC ("MKH" or "MKH Properties") and Maurice Kirk Harless ("Harless").
In their Amended Complaint (doc. 17), plaintiffs allege that defendant Harless (who owns property adjacent to plaintiffs' family's property) had erected an "illegal barricade that prevented and impeded" access to the front of plaintiffs' family home. (Id. at ¶¶ 8-9.) Plaintiffs allege that the City allowed this barricade to stand, that MKH and/or Harless caused Hilliard Drive (the road abutting the front of plaintiffs' family home) to be closed and instead constructed a road to access the home
On the basis of these asserted facts, plaintiffs purported to bring the following claims and causes of action in their Amended Complaint: (i) a federal constitutional claim of false arrest and false imprisonment against Randall Champions (the City police officer who took them into custody, transported them to jail, and processed paperwork for the criminal charges) (Count I); (ii) a claim against all defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for "denial and interference of Equal Protection of the Law" (Count II); (iii) an equal protection claim against all defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that plaintiffs are a "class of one" (Count III); (iv) a § 1983 claim against all defendants for an unspecified "deprivation of rights" (Count IV); (v) a § 1983 claim against all defendants for "conspiracy against rights," again without specifying the rights at issue (Count V);
In a responsive pleading filed on May 1, 2013, defendant MKH requested Rule 11 and "inherent powers" sanctions against plaintiffs. (Doc. 70, at 10-11.) As grounds for these requests, MKH insisted that plaintiffs' claims are "frivolous" and "without substantial justification," and that plaintiffs are pursuing them in bad faith. (Id.) On that basis, MKH sought an award of attorney's fees and an injunction imposing prospective restrictions on filings by Reginald Johnson and Shirley Johnson-Young. In that same pleading, MKH asserted state-law counterclaims against plaintiffs for breach of contract (alleging that the filing of this action breaches a settlement agreement previously entered into by MKH and Johnson), trespass (alleging that Johnson and Johnson-Young trespassed on MKH's property in late November 2009, when they destroyed MKH's privacy fence with a chainsaw and sledgehammer), conversion (alleging that Johnson and Johnson-Young committed conversion by destroying MKH's fence), trespass (alleging that Johnson and Johnson-Young trespassed on MKH's property in September 2012 and cut a road from Parcel A across two adjacent lots in Parcel B), and civil conspiracy (alleging that Johnson and Johnson-Young
The City, MKH and Harless have now moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs and MKH/Harless have filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment relating to certain of MKH's counterclaims.
Plaintiffs are a brother and sister who reside in Houston, Texas. (Johnson-Young Dep. (doc. 101, Exh. 2), at 105; Johnson Dep. (doc. 101, Exh. 5), at 45.) Plaintiffs' parents owned and resided on a five-acre tract of real property (referred to in the record as "Parcel A") in the police jurisdiction of Satsuma, Alabama, near the intersection of Interstate 65 and Highway 43, until their deaths in 1988 and 2000. Parcel A remains in the Johnson family, and it is undisputed that Johnson and Johnson-Young possess an ownership interest in said property.
Prior to the year 2000, Parcel B was owned by nonparty Gilbert Leasing Company, Inc. Based on a dispute with Rosemary Johnson (the mother of Johnson and Johnson-Young), Gilbert Leasing initiated a lawsuit in 1997 to quiet title to the property.
The Gilbert Action having resolved all questions of title to Parcel B, Gilbert Leasing sold the tract of land to defendant MKH Properties, LLC in December 2000. (Harless Decl., ¶ 3 & Exh. 2.) MKH (whose sole member is defendant Maurice Kirk Harless) proceeded to develop a 49-lot residential subdivision (inclusive of roads and sidewalks) called Gilbert Creek Estates on Parcel B. (Harless Decl., ¶ 6.) The subdivision's restrictive covenants called for the entire subdivision to be enclosed by a wooden privacy fence. (Id., ¶ 7.)
In October 2003, after the subdivision had been completed with paved streets, MKH erected a wooden perimeter fence, with such fence being placed entirely within the boundaries of Parcel B. (Johnson-Young Dep., at 94; doc. 101, Exh. 1, at 99-101; Harless Decl., ¶ 11.) Plaintiffs found this event traumatic and upsetting. MKH caused a truck to block Hilliard Drive, then caused stakes or posts to be placed in Hilliard Drive, blocking traffic in or out. (Johnson-Young Dep., at 80-81.) On each occasion, plaintiffs or their family members called the Satsuma Police Department, and City police officers visited the property and required MKH to remove the obstruction. (Id.) But then MKH caused a mound of dirt to block Hilliard Drive, closed the road altogether, and constructed the fence, effectively cutting off the front of the Johnson family home on Parcel A from being accessed via Hilliard Drive. (Id.) As an accommodation, MKH graded, straightened and widened a driveway on Parcel B from Powers Road to the rear of the Johnson family home, to allow access to the home. (Harless Decl., ¶ 8; doc. 104, Exhs. 27 & 28.)
For whatever reason, Johnson and Johnson-Young refused to accept the 1998 Judgment that their family owned no right or interest in Parcel B. To that end, they have brought at least four lawsuits (not counting the case at bar) against MKH, the City of Satsuma, and others to contest the very same property ownership issues underlying their Complaint in this case. As discussed below, each of these previous civil actions ended with an unfavorable disposition to Johnson and Johnson-Young.
In 1999, Reginald Johnson sued Gilbert Leasing and a company called Harless/Stokke, Inc. in this District Court, in an action styled Reginald Johnson v. Gilbert Leasing, Inc. and Harless/Stokke, Inc., Civil Action 99-0574-CB-M (the "1999 Lawsuit"). Johnson essentially sought to overturn the 1998 Judgment by requesting a judicial declaration that the defendants had no interest in Parcel B and seeking defendants' ejectment from same. On April 12, 2000, Judge Butler entered an Order granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing Johnson's claims in their entirety. (Doc. 101, Exh. 8.) In that Order, Judge Butler found that the 1999 Lawsuit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the legal issues raised by Johnson had already been fully and finally litigated in the Gilbert Action. Johnson appealed; however, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal on June 27, 2000 for want of prosecution.
In 2001, Shirley Johnson-Young sued MKH Properties and Harless in the Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama, in an action styled Shirley A. Johnson-Young and Viola Shaw v. MKH Properties, et al., Case No. CV-01-4105-51 (the "2001 Lawsuit"). The premise of this action was, once again, that plaintiffs and not MKH or Harless actually owned Parcel B. On February 13, 2002, Circuit Judge James C. Wood entered a one-paragraph Order granting summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. (Doc. 101, Exh. 9.)
In 2005, Reginald Johnson commenced yet another lawsuit about Parcel B in federal court, this one styled Reginald Johnson v. Marilyn E. Wood, et al., Civil Action No. 05-0391-KD-B (the "2005 Lawsuit"). The 2005 Lawsuit became a five-year saga spanning 296 pleadings. While comprehensive discussion of the 2005 Action would carry us far afield, a fair synopsis is as follows: Johnson's pleadings alleged that MKH had acquired Parcel B based on a "fraudulent transfer of property" and "racially discriminatory deprivation of rights," and that Johnson's rights to Parcel B had been deprived "by State sanctioned race discrimination." Johnson alleged that these actions were violative of the Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. MKH brought counterclaims against Johnson on grounds of slander of title, among others. On December 5, 2006, Judge DuBose entered an Order finding that Johnson's claims of constitutional violations by MKH "must fail" because "Johnson lacks standing to assert any claim against MKH Properties under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 on the basis of the contract by which MKH Properties acquired title to Parcel B," and alternatively any such claims were obviously time-barred. (Doc. 101, Exh. 11, at 16-19 & n. 30.) On that basis, Johnson's claims against MKH were dismissed. (Id. at 20.)
On January 17, 2007, Judge DuBose entered an Order finding that "this Court has no authority to overrule the 1998 state court judgment" and that Johnson's constitutional claims against the Mobile County Revenue Commissioner failed as a matter of law because he "is unable to show that he has a legitimate interest in the property at issue," inasmuch as "the deed upon which he bases his entitlement to [Parcel B] was voided in the 1998 quiet title action." On January 3, 2007, Judge DuBose entered an Order rejecting Johnson's argument that MKH's "title to the disputed property is based on a `fraudulent transfer.'" On February 12, 2007, Magistrate Judge Bivins denied Johnson's "Motion for the Court to Determine Which Party Has Marketable Record Title" to Parcel B, concluding that "title to the subject property
Against this backdrop of numerous unsuccessful lawsuits, Johnson and Johnson-Young turned to self-help remedies with respect to the perimeter fence on Parcel B. On November 25, 2009, Harless was contacted by a person who identified himself as Roosevelt Johnson.
Armed with this information, Harless went to the City of Satsuma on November 30, 2009, and reported the incident to City police officer Jonathan Forister, who prepared an Alabama Uniform Incident/Offense Report to document Harless's statement. (Forister Aff. (doc. 101, Exh. 4), ¶ 3 & Exh. A.) On April 26, 2010, Harless went to Satsuma City Hall to make a complaint against Johnson and Johnson-Young for destroying his fence. (Harless Decl., ¶ 16.) City Magistrate Lisa Cooper spoke with Harless, reviewed Officer Forister's report, examined photographs taken by Harless before and after the destruction of the fence, and determined that there was probable cause to issue a complaint and arrest warrant against Johnson and Johnson-Young for the charge of criminal mischief second degree. (Cooper Aff. (doc.
The task of executing the arrest warrants fell on City of Satsuma police officer Randall Champion, who was formerly a defendant in this case.
Johnson-Young was found guilty of the offense of criminal mischief second degree in the City of Satsuma Municipal Court on March 24, 2011. (Cooper Aff., ¶ 7 & Exh. G.)
Summary judgment should be granted only "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Rule 56(a), Fed.R.Civ.P. The party seeking summary judgment bears "the initial burden to show the district court, by reference to materials on file, that there are no genuine issues of material fact that should be decided at trial." Clark v. Coats & Clark, Inc., 929 F.2d 604, 608 (11th Cir.1991). Once the
As noted supra, plaintiffs' claims in this case sound in federal statutory and constitutional theories, including false arrest, violation of equal protection (including race discrimination and "class of one" variants), deprivation of unspecified rights, conspiracy to deprive plaintiffs of unspecified rights and privileges, and violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1705 (destruction of letter boxes or mail). All or most of these claims are firmly rooted in the premise that plaintiffs own Parcel B, such that MKH was not entitled to build a privacy fence blocking the front of the Johnson family home and plaintiffs were therefore entitled to go onto Parcel B to tear it down.
Defendants correctly invoke res judicata as a cornerstone of their summary judgment filings. The doctrine of res judicata (or claim preclusion) forbids Johnson and Johnson-Young from asserting causes of action against defendants that would entail relitigation of the issue of ownership/property rights in Parcel B. Under Alabama law, the elements of res judicata are "(1) a prior judgment on the merits, (2) rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) with substantial identity of the parties, and (4) with the same cause of action presented in both actions." Jefferson County Com'n v. Edwards, 32 So.3d 572, 581 (Ala.2009) (citation omitted). "If those four elements are present, then any claim that was, or that could have been, adjudicated in the prior action is barred from further litigation." Id. (citation omitted).
Just as Judge Butler found in the 1999 Lawsuit, and as Judge Granade found in the 2004 Lawsuit, and as Judges DuBose and Bivins found in the 2005 Lawsuit, the 1998 Judgment entered in the Gilbert Action is entitled to preclusive effect that bars Johnson and Johnson-Young from litigating claims of an ownership interest or property rights in Parcel B in this action. The 1998 Judgment is unquestionably a prior judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Moreover, although the Gilbert Action was brought nominally against Rosemary Johnson (and not her children Reginald Johnson and Shirley Johnson-Young) to quiet title in Parcel B, the "substantial identity of the parties" element was satisfied for at least three reasons. First, the record contains considerable evidence that Reginald Johnson and Shirley Johnson-Young actively and extensively participated in the Gilbert Action by filing pleadings, giving depositions, attending trial, consulting
Second, even if they were not technically parties to the Gilbert Action, Johnson and Johnson-Young are nonetheless bound by the 1998 Judgment for res judicata purposes because they were in privity with Rosemary Johnson by virtue of both their close family relationship with her (i.e., mother/son, mother/daughter) and their intertwined, identically situated interest in the subject Parcel B. See, e.g., Parmater v. Amcord, Inc., 699 So.2d 1238, 1241 (Ala.1997) ("substantial identity of the parties" element is satisfied if party against whom res judicata is asserted "either was a party or was in privity with a party to the prior action or ... the nonparty's interests were adequately represented by a party in the prior action"); Owen v. Miller, 414 So.2d 889, 891 (Ala. 1981) ("A non-party who has an interest sufficiently close to the matter litigated and who had an adequate opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding, may be bound by the earlier judgment."). In a res judicata analysis, the term "privity denotes mutual or successive relationship to the same right of property." Mitchell v. Austin, 266 Ala. 128, 94 So.2d 391, 392 (1957) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Bradberry v. Carrier Corp., 86 So.3d 973, 986 (Ala.2011) ("A party is deemed to be in privity with a party to a prior action when there is an identity of interest in the subject matter of litigation.") (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); Skelton v. Tyner, 247 Ala. 511, 25 So.2d 160, 161 (1946) ("the heir is in privity with his ancestor from whom he inherits the land by operation of law"). Johnson and Johnson-Young were heirs of Rosemary Johnson as to her interest (if any) in Parcel B, and were therefore in privity with her under applicable law.
Third, the interests of Johnson and Johnson-Young were "adequately represented by a party in the prior action," Parmater, 699 So.2d at 1241, so as to satisfy the "substantial identity of the parties" element of the res judicata inquiry. The interests of Reginald Young and Shirley Johnson-Young were fully aligned with those of their mother, Rosemary Johnson, in the Gilbert Action; therefore, the "substantial identity of the parties" prong is satisfied.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Johnson and Johnson-Young insist that res judicata has no application here because (i) there is a fraud exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; (ii) they are traveling under Rule 60(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and (iii) they invoke a "fraud exception" to res judicata. Each of these counterarguments will be considered in turn.
First, plaintiffs quote extensively from a law review article concerning "The Fraud Exception to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine." (Doc. 125, at 23-27; doc. 132, at 13-14.) Such reasoning is misplaced because this Court's preclusion ruling is not based on Rooker-Feldman.
Second, plaintiffs state (without explaining) that Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure defeats application of the res judicata bar. (Doc. 125, at 27-28; doc. 132, at 14-15.) In the overwhelming majority of cases, Rule 60(b) motions for relief from a judgment or order are filed in the same lawsuit as the judgment or order from which relief is sought. Nonetheless, the rule does recognize the power of a federal district court to "entertain an independent action to relieve a party from a judgment, order, or proceeding." Rule 60(d)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. It is apparently this power that Johnson and Johnson-Young would invoke. Plaintiffs' argument is meritless because courts (including binding authority) routinely conclude that the "independent action" provision of Rule 60 is not properly used to circumvent the preclusive effects of res judicata. See, e.g., Travelers Indem. Co. v. Gore, 761 F.2d 1549, 1552 (11th Cir.1985) (in Rule 60(b) context, "the plaintiff cannot use an independent action as a vehicle for the relitigation of issues" because "a party is precluded by res judicata from relitigation in the independent action issues that were open to litigation in the former action where he had a fair opportunity to make his claim or defense in that action") (citation omitted).
Third, Johnson and Johnson-Young assert that res judicata does not apply here because of a purported "fraud exception." (Doc. 125, at 28-30; doc. 132, at 15.) According to plaintiffs, the "fraud" was that Harless, Gilbert Leasing and others "had ample opportunity and were in a near perfect venue to manipulate and orchestrate the fraud — transfer the disputed property in a manner that would appear valid to the unsuspected." (Doc. 125, at 23.) So plaintiffs' position is that because Gilbert Leasing's evidence of title to Parcel B was, in plaintiffs' view, "manipulated" and invalid, the doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable. But courts have expressed hostility to the "proposition that fraud on the court is an authority to allow a collateral attack on a judgment — i.e., defeating the defense of res judicata." Plotner v. AT & T Corp., 224 F.3d 1161, 1170 (10th Cir.2000). More importantly, the Alabama Supreme Court and federal courts have refused to entertain "fraud on the court" theories to circumvent res judicata where the party raising them could have litigated them in the original action. See, e.g., Cashion v. Torbert, 881 So.2d 408, 414 (Ala.2003) (res judicata bars "fraud on the court" argument because it could have been raised in the original action); Weldon v. United States, 70 F.3d 1, 5 (2nd Cir.1995) ("Only if Weldon had had no opportunity to litigate the allegations of fraud on the court could this action go forward," without regard to res judicata principles); Browning v. Navarro, 887 F.2d 553, 558-60 (5th Cir.1989) (complaint that underlying judgment was fraudulently obtained was barred by res judicata because the fraud argument could have been presented in the original suit); Caliendo v. Rodriguez, 1995 WL 709251, *3 (7th Cir. Nov. 30, 1995) ("Once jurisdiction is established, fraud on the court will not vitiate the preclusive effect of the court's judgment unless the rendering court sets it aside."). All evidence before the Court is that Johnson and Johnson-Young (and/or their privy, Rosemary Johnson) actually did present fraud arguments in the Gilbert Action with respect to Gilbert Leasing's claim of title to Parcel B; therefore, invoking fraud now does not facilitate plaintiffs' attempts to dodge the preclusive bar of res judicata.
Notwithstanding plaintiffs' voluminous briefs, the bottom line is quite simple. Fifteen years ago, a state-court judge in a court of competent jurisdiction entered a judgment quieting title to Parcel B; declaring that Gilbert Leasing Company, Inc. had title to such real property; concluding that Rosemary Johnson had no right, title or interest in Parcel B, and that deeds prepared by Reginald Johnson purporting to convey color of title to her were legally invalid; and granting Rosemary Johnson a personal license for her homeplace encroachment on Parcel B, such license to expire upon her death. Reginald Johnson and Shirley Johnson-Young are Rosemary Johnson's heirs. They are in privity to her, their interests were substantially represented in the Gilbert Action, they participated extensively in that litigation, and they made the same fraud arguments in the Gilbert Action that they advance today. They were dissatisfied with the judgment entered in the Gilbert Action on July 6, 1998. They have spent the last 14 years filing a barrage of lawsuits in federal and state courts in hopes of encountering a judge or jury that will disagree with the state-court judge in the Gilbert Action, find that Gilbert Leasing, MKH and Harless defrauded the Johnsons out of their land, and award them title to Parcel B.
But that is not how our judicial system works. Parties do not get to continue filing lawsuits — harassing their adversaries and consuming scarce judicial and litigant resources for years on end — until they get an answer they like. Indeed, the very purpose of the judicially created doctrine of res judicata is to ensure "that there be an end to litigation; that those who have contested an issue shall be bound by the ruling of the court; and that issues once tried shall be considered forever settled between those same parties and their privies." Hughes v. Martin, 533 So.2d 188, 190 (Ala.1988); see also Ex parte Ocean Reef Developers II, LLC, 84 So.3d 900, 905 (Ala.Civ.App.2011) ("One benefit of the doctrine of res judicata is that it prevents a defendant from being subject to repeated litigation over the same subject matter."). This case presents a textbook example of the sound policy justifications undergirding the doctrine. Plaintiffs have tried and failed in at least five different lawsuits to claim property rights in Parcel B. The vexation and expense that Johnson and Johnson-Young have caused to other parties (chiefly MKH and Harless, but also the City), and the colossal waste of judicial resources flowing from their efforts to get some judge — any judge — to deviate from Judge McDermott's judgment in the Gilbert Action are precisely why they cannot and must not be allowed to persist in such litigation here. Res judicata forbids it.
For these reasons, and because plaintiffs' claims in this lawsuit all rest on the legally unsound premise that they own Parcel B, the Court finds that defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment are due to be granted and that plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata.
Even if the doctrine of res judicata were not fatal to each of the six federal causes of action interposed in the Amended Complaint, summary judgment would remain appropriate for all defendants on other grounds.
Counts II through V of the Amended Complaint purport to assert § 1981 and § 1983 claims against the City, MKH and Harless for deprivations of (or conspiracy to deprive) plaintiffs' civil rights, on a theory of violation of equal protection (race discrimination and "class of one"). By all appearances, Counts II through V are grounded in events that took place in and before 2003. In their briefs, plaintiffs assert that they were "singled out due to [their] race and ethnicity" by defendants' actions of (i) closing Hilliard Drive where it approaches the front of the Johnson family home; (ii) blocking off that route by constructing a fence; (iii) moving the mailbox to the rear of the Johnson family home; (iv) failing to respond to Johnson family requests for governmental intervention; (v) creating a route for plaintiffs to access the Johnson family home from the back via Powers Road rather than from the front via Hilliard Drive; and (vi) sending the Johnsons a letter in July 2004 informing them that their "new address is 409 A, B and C Powers Road" (doc. 125, Exh. S). (Doc. 127, at 9-13; doc. 125, at 44-45.)
As defendants correctly point out in their summary judgment filings, the threshold defect with Counts II through V is that they are time-barred. The § 1983 and § 1985 conspiracy claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. See, e.g., McNair v. Allen, 515 F.3d 1168, 1173 (11th Cir.2008) ("All constitutional claims brought under § 1983 are tort actions, subject to the statute of limitations governing personal injury actions in the state where the § 1983 action has been brought.... [I]n Alabama ... the governing limitations period is two years."); Morrow v. Town of Littleville, 576 So.2d 210, 213 (Ala.1991) (concluding that "the only statute of limitations now applicable to a § 1983 claim filed in a court in Alabama, whether that court is a state court or a federal court, is the two-year statute of limitations set out in Ala.Code 1975, § 6-2-38(l)").
In addition to being time-barred, Counts II through V suffer from a host of other deficiencies that entitle defendants to summary judgment. For example, insofar as plaintiffs pursue a claim under § 1981 against the City of Satsuma, that claim is not cognizable as a matter of law. See, e.g., Baker, 531 F.3d at 1337 ("Section 1981 does not provide a cause of action against state actors; instead, claims against state actors or allegations of § 1981 violations must be brought pursuant to § 1983."). Similarly, to the extent plaintiffs' claims under § 1981 and § 1983 proceed on theories of race discrimination, the record is devoid of facts (as contrasted with speculation, innuendo and rhetoric) that might support a reasonable inference that any of the complained-of conduct by defendants amounted to purposeful race discrimination (or a conspiracy to engage in same). See, e.g., General Bldg. Contractors Ass'n, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, 458 U.S. 375, 102 S.Ct. 3141, 73 L.Ed.2d 835 (1982) ("We conclude ... that § 1981, like the Equal Protection Clause, can be violated only by purposeful discrimination."); Citizens Concerned About Our Children v. School Bd.
Finally, Count VI of the Amended Complaint seeks to hold defendants liable under 18 U.S.C. § 1705, based on the relocation of the mailbox at the Johnson family home from the front to the rear of the home. (Doc. 17, ¶¶ 61-63.) Plaintiffs acknowledge that the relocation of the mailbox happened in the 2003-2004 time frame. (Johnson-Young Dep., at 105.) Thus, this claim is time-barred for the same reasons that Counts II through V are untimely, as discussed supra. More fundamentally, Count VI fails because § 1705 is a criminal statute.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the undersigned concludes that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and that defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all claims and causes of action interposed by Johnson and Johnson-Young. This conclusion is expressly premised on both res judicata and a timeliness/merits analysis as presented above. In light of this determination, all of plaintiffs' claims will be
The dismissal of plaintiffs' claims in their entirety does not resolve all issues and causes of action herein. In particular, defendants Maurice Kirk Harless and MKH Properties included in their Answers (docs. 70, 73) a request for Rule 11 sanctions, reasoning that Johnson and Johnson-Young have presented frivolous claims for improper purposes. (Doc. 70, at 10; doc. 73, at 10.) MKH Properties and Harless further requested that the Court exercise its inherent powers to impose sanctions against Johnson and Johnson-Young for bringing frivolous claims in bad faith. (Doc. 70, at 11; doc. 73, at 10-11.) In both instances, MKH Properties/Harless explained that the sanctions they seek consist of both an award of attorney's fees and an injunction to restrict future filings by Johnson and Johnson-Young. With respect to these requests for sanctions, the parties are instructed that after all claims and counterclaims have been resolved, the Court will enter a briefing schedule affording MKH Properties and Harless an opportunity to file a formal motion for sanctions, accompanied by supporting exhibits and legal authority as appropriate. Johnson and Johnson-Young will receive a fair opportunity to be heard in response before the Court takes the sanctions issue under submission.
What's more, Johnson and Johnson-Young have recently testified in no uncertain terms that they intend to continue filing lawsuits indefinitely against MKH and/or Harless concerning Parcel B until they get what they want. In a deposition held on September 16, 2013, Johnson answered affirmatively when asked each of the following: (i) "If the Judge dismisses this case without a jury trial, will you file another case?" (ii) "If a jury decides against you, will you file another case?" and (iii) "If that case goes against you, will you file another case?" (Johnson Dep. (doc. 104, Exh. 25), at 46-47.) When asked the same questions in her deposition, Johnson-Young testified that she would file another case "[i]f there is another
Not to be overlooked in the parties' sprawling mass of arguments and briefs is MKH Properties' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (doc. 105) on its Counterclaims. Recall that MKH Properties has asserted a state-law counterclaim against Reginald Johnson for breach of contract (based on his 2009 agreement to refrain from making any further claim to Parcel B in exchange for MKH Properties not executing on its $86,500 judgment against him in the 2005 Lawsuit); as well as state-law counterclaims against both Reginald Johnson and Shirley Johnson-Young for trespass (entry onto Parcel B in November 2009 to destroy the perimeter fence), conversion (destruction of the fence), trespass (entry onto Parcel B in September 2012 to cut a track or road from Parcel A across two subdivision lots in Parcel B), and civil conspiracy. (See doc. 70.) MKH Properties claims damages in excess of $75,000 for these claims, on the theory that the alleged conduct of Johnson and Johnson-Young has "rendered unmarketable" at least two adjacent subdivision lots in the Gilbert Creek Estates development that otherwise would have had a fair market value in excess of $75,000. These are serious claims as to which Johnson and Johnson-Young face direct financial exposure, if found liable to MKH Properties at trial.
In its Rule 56 Motion, MKH Properties does not seek entry of judgment as a matter of law on any of these Counterclaims. Rather, MKH Properties simply requests summary judgment on the issue of whether the 1998 Judgment entered in the Gilbert Action "conclusively established that Reginald Johnson and Shirley Johnson-Young have no right, title or interest in the real property which was the subject of the judgment." (Doc. 105.) For all of the reasons set forth above, the Court finds as a matter of law that the 1998 Judgment did, in fact, conclusively establish that Johnson and Johnson-Young have no right, title or interest in Parcel B. Johnson and Johnson-Young are not entitled to revisit and relitigate this question here, just as they have not been entitled to do so in the four other lawsuits they have filed in state and federal court in the intervening 15 years. They have been conclusively, repeatedly adjudicated to have no right, title or interest in Parcel B; therefore, Johnson and Johnson-Young will not be permitted to argue otherwise in defense of the pending Counterclaims. MKH Properties' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is
Of course, this ruling does not establish liability of Johnson and Johnson-Young on MKH Properties' Counterclaims. Those Counterclaims remain active and pending, and will be set for trial as to all issues
Before embarking on this time-consuming and expensive course, the undersigned
For all of the foregoing reasons, it is
