 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dennis v. Vasquez5/30/2003
(For Official Publication)
Appellant Ilia Dennis appeals the district court's grant of Appellee David Vasquez's summary judgment motion. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Dennis brought suit in small claims court for property damage incurred in an automobile accident with Vasquez. In his complaint, he alleged: "Damage to vehicle . . . as a result of an auto accident." He then properly served notice of the small claims action upon Vasquez. The opposing parties appeared in court at the appointed time, argued their respective positions, and had opportunity to present evidence. After hearing argument from both parties, the small claims judge ruled against Dennis and checked the box on the judgment form that states, "No Cause of Action." Dennis did not appeal that judgment. Later, Dennis filed a new suit in district court claiming damages for personal injuries sustained during the same automobile accident. The district court entered summary judgment on grounds that Dennis's claim was barred by claim preclusion.
ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Dennis challenges the trial court's grant of summary judgment. "We will affirm summary judgment only when 'there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.' We review the trial court's legal conclusions for correctness, granting no deference." Alder v. Bayer Corp., 2002 UT 115, , 61 P.3d 1068 (quoting Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c)) (other citations omitted).
ANALYSIS
Dennis argues that res judicata does not bar the second suit because (1) the issues in the two suits are not identical, and (2) the judgment in the small claims action was not final and on the merits.
"Generally, 'claim preclusion bars a party from prosecuting in a subsequent action a claim that has been fully litigated previously.'" In order for a claim to be precluded under this doctrine the party seeking preclusion must establish three elements:
"First, both cases must involve the same parties or their privies. Second, the claim that is alleged to be barred must have been presented in the first suit or be one that could and should have been raised in the first action. Third, the first suit must have resulted in a final judgment on the merits." Snyder v. Murray City Corp., 2003 UT 13, , 471 Utah Adv. Rep. 5 (citations omitted).
Clearly, the first element of claim preclusion, identity of the parties, is met here. The second element, requiring the claim to "have been presented in the first suit or be one that could and should have been raised in the first action" is also met here. Id. (quotations and citations omitted). Dennis "could . . . have . . . raised" his personal injury claim in the small claims action. Id. (emphasis added) (quotations and citations omitted). See Kawamoto v. Fratto, 2000 Utah 6, , 994 P.2d 187 (holding small claims courts have jurisdiction to hear personal injury claims).
Further, Dennis "should have . . . raised" his personal injury claim in the first suit. Snyder, 2003 UT 13 at (emphasis added) (quotations and citations omitted). The law in Utah generally prohibits splitting causes of action. See Macris & Assocs., Inc. v. Neways, Inc., 2000 UT 93, , 60 P.3d 1176 (stating that where a plaintiff "commences a second action to obtain increased damages, the court will hold him precluded; his claim has been merged in the judgment and may not be split. It is immaterial that in trying the first action he was not in possession of enough information about the damages, past or prospective, or that the damages turned out in fact to be unexpectedly large and in excess of the judg
Page 1 2 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|