Opinion
Case No. 07-0690-CV-W-FJG.
September 10, 2008
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant's Notice of State Court Ruling of No Settlement (Doc. No. 88).
I. BACKGROUND
On September 6, 2007, defendant (Haines) filed a personal injury action in the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri against plaintiff's (Sentinel) insured, Josh Kauffman (Kauffman). Kauffman moved to dismiss Haines's action in state court based on the affirmative defense that a settlement agreement existed between the parties. Additionally, Kauffman orally moved the court to enforce the settlement agreement. The state court found that Kauffman did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that an enforceable settlement agreement existed between the parties.Haines v. Kauffman, Amended Order, 07-16-CV25371 (Aug. 26, 2008). As a result, the state court denied Kauffman's motion to dismiss and motion to enforce the settlement agreement.
In his notice, Haines moves this court to dismiss the present action to enforce the purported settlement agreement based on the state court's ruling that a settlement agreement was not entered into by Kauffman and Haines. Haines contends that the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel preclude this Court from deciding the present case.
Haines also renews his arguments to dismiss the action based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and abstention. The Court has previously considered and ruled on both issues in an order (Doc. No. 29). The Court is also considering Haines's motion to reconsider that order in a separate motion (Doc. No. 83); therefore, the Court will address those arguments in a separate order.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Although a district court may in its discretion convert a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment when accepting material outside of the pleadings, the Court declines to do so here. See Casazza v. Kiser, 313 F.3d 414, 417-18 (8th Cir. 2002). The Court takes judicial notice of the state court orders entered on August 18, 2008 and August 26, 2008 by the Honorable Jay Daugherty in Haines v. Kauffman, 07-16-CV25371.
III. DISCUSSION
12Hamm v. Groose15 F.3d 110112th Ossman v. Diana Corp.825 F. Supp. 870879-80Ossman825 F. Supp. at 880Frey v. City of Herculaneum44 F.3d 667671th See Williams Finance Plaza78 S.W.3d 175 183Canady v. Allstate Ins. Co.282 F.3d 10051016th See State v. Nunley923 S.W.2d 911922
As to the second factor, the issue decided in a prior adjudication must be essential to that court's valid and final judgment in the case. Consumers Oil Co. v. Spiking, 717 S.W.2d 245, 250 (Mo.App.Ct. W.D. 1986) (emphasis added). A denial of a motion to dismiss is not a final judgment. See Reis v. Peabody Coal Co., 935 S.W.2d 625, 632 (Mo.App.Ct. E.D. 1996). A final judgment disposes of all the claims in the litigation as to all parties while leaving nothing for future determination by the court. Bell Scott, L.L.C. v. Wood, Wood and Wood Investments, Inc., 169 S.W.3d 552, 554 (Mo.App.Ct. E.D. 2005).
The state court's order denied Kauffman's motion to dismiss based on an affirmative defense and his motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Neither ruling was essential to the state court's final judgment in the case. As far as the Court is aware, the state court has not entered a final judgment in the case before it. Therefore, collateral estoppel will not preclude litigation in the present case on the issue of whether a settlement agreement existed between the parties because there is no final judgment in the state court proceedings.
IV. CONCLUSION
Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Dismiss based on the State Court's Ruling of No Settlement (Doc. No. 88).
IT IS SO ORDERED.