Deborah Ellis appeals a summary judgment favoring Life Insurance Company of North America, which was granted based on res judicata due to a prior dismissal of a similar suit as time-barred. Ellis originally filed her claim for accidental death benefits under her mother's insurance policy in 1992 in Henderson County, Texas, but it was removed to the Eastern District and stayed. In 1997, she initiated a second suit with similar claims in Dallas County, which was also removed to the Northern District. Life Insurance Company moved for summary judgment in that case, asserting it was barred by the statute of limitations, leading to its dismissal with prejudice in February 1998. After this, Ellis sought to lift the stay on the Eastern District suit, which was then transferred to the Northern District. Life again moved for summary judgment in this suit, and the court ruled it was barred by res judicata due to the earlier dismissal. The court affirmed that the dismissal in the Northern District was a decision on the merits, contrary to Ellis's claim that it was not. Under Fifth Circuit law, dismissals based on statute of limitations are considered final judgments on the merits. Ellis's argument regarding the timing of the Eastern District suit being filed before the Northern District suit was not found persuasive, as it did not align with federal res judicata principles.
The plaintiff in Hogue filed simultaneous state and federal lawsuits in Texas, with the state court granting summary judgment. The court assessed the res judicata effect of the state judgment under Texas law and rejected the argument that simultaneous filings warranted different treatment than successive filings. Relying on the Restatement (Second) of Judgments §14, the court determined that the first final judgment rendered is conclusive in subsequent actions involving the same claim or issue, regardless of the order of filing. Consequently, Hogue’s federal claim was barred by res judicata due to the state judgment. This principle was echoed in Hansler, where the court upheld that the first judgment holds preclusive effect, dismissing Hansler's claim that his earlier federal filing should negate the Texas judgment's effect. The court also indicated that the Restatement rule likely applies to federal judgments, supported by precedent predicting Texas law on res judicata. The controlling factor is the date of the judgment, not the filing dates. The court concluded that res judicata applies to the Eastern District lawsuit, irrespective of its earlier filing compared to the Northern District suit. Furthermore, the court affirmed the district court’s finding that both suits arose from the same transaction, satisfying the requirement of identity of causes of action. The dismissal of the Northern District suit was thus found to have res judicata effect on the Eastern District suit, and the summary judgment in favor of Life was affirmed.
