Cluster 781659

See, e.g., Alyshah v. United States, 241 F. App’x 665 , 668 n.3 (11th Cir. 2007) (holding that “a court may not assume ‘hypothetical jurisdiction’ to decide the merits of a case despite its lack of jurisdiction” due to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); In re Knapper, 407 F.3d 573 , 580 n.15 (3d Cir. 2005); Nguyen v. Phillips, 69 F. App’x 358 , 359 n.3 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that “[w]e must consider … jurisdictional challenges” under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine “before 12 turnin…

See Hargis v. Doe, 3 Ohio App.3d 36 , 443 N.E.2d 1008, 1010 (1981) (noting that under Ohio law “a supplier is subject to liability for the damages proximately caused by the use of his product, in the manner and for the purpose for which it was supplied, if he fails to exercise reasonable care to give the user information which he has and which he should realize *240 would be necessary to make the use of the product safé”); Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 , 364…

LEXIS 3463 , at *24 (6th Cir. BAP Dec. 20, 2021)(quoting Hutcherson v. Lauderdale Cnty., Tenn., 326 F.3d 747, 755 (6th Cir. 2003)); see also, Davis v. U.S., 499 F.3d 590, 595 (6th Cir. 2007).

As noted in the recent report and recommendation, the Rooker-Feldman Doctrine provides that “inferior federal courts lack jurisdiction to review the final judgments of state courts.” Hutcherson v. Lauderdale Cnty., Tenn., 326 F. 3d 747, 755 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing D.C.

Co. v. Kulick, 656 F.2d 1224, 1227 (6th Cir. 1981). 2 The dissent frames our decision to raise the issue of res judicata as error because it was sua sponte citing a quote out of context from Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, 326 F.3d 747, 757 (6th Cir. 2003).

Nov. 30, 2023) (noting that, for purposes of res judicata, “[t]he relevant inquiry focuses on whether the federal action would require [a court] to revisit issues and claims that were litigated or could have been litigated in the state court,” and that res judicata estops a party from choosing “to abandon [part of a] claim at the state court level, hoping to raise it in federal court.”) (quoting Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, Tenn., 326 F.3d 747, 759 (6th Cir. 2003)).

(ECF No. 17-2 at 2.) Under similar circumstances as these, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has found that res judicata precludes a federal action when the parties “both admit that the factual basis for the . . . federal action is the same as that underlying [an earlier] state court proceeding,” even if the plaintiffs “seek money damages in the federal action, which were not sought in the state action.” Hutcherson v. Lauderdale Cnty., Tennessee, 326 F…

Ohio), citing Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, TN., 326 F.3d 747, 756 (6th Cir. 2003).

Appellant Br. at 21 (quoting Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, 326 F.3d 747, 755 (6th Cir. 2003)).

“Courts generally lack the ability to raise an affirmative defense sua sponte.” Hutcherson, 326 F.3d at 757.

No. 27 at 6) (quoting Hutcherson v. Lauderdale Cnty., Tenn., 326 F.3d 747, 755 (6th Cir. 2003)).

First “[t]he Rooker- Feldman doctrine provides that inferior federal courts lack jurisdiction to review the final judgments of state courts.” Hutcherson v. Lauderdale Cty., Tenn., 326 F.3d 747, 755 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing D.C.

P. 8(c), a district court may raise the matter of res judicata sua sponte “in certain circumstances.” Hutcherson v. Lauderdale Cnty., Tenn., 326 F.3d 747, 757 (6th Cir. 2003) (collecting cases).

Although res judicata is “an affirmative defense that should be raised by the defending party” as a matter of “both federal and Tennessee law,” Hutcherson v. Lauderdale Cnty., Tenn., 326 F.3d 747, 757 (6th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted), “a court may take the initiative to assert the res judicata defense sua sponte in ‘special circumstances.’” Id. (quoting Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 412 (2000)).

Migra, 465 U.S. at 85 ; Hutcherson v. Lauderdale Cty., Tenn., 326 F.3d 747, 758 (6th Cir. 2003).

However, the Supreme Court as well as the Sixth Circuit have indicated that a Court may take the initiative to assert the res judicata defense sua sponte in “special circumstances.” Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 412 , 120 S.Ct. 2304 , 147 L.Ed.2d 374 (2000); Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, Tennessee, 326 F.3d 747, 757 (6th Cir.2003).

Although res judicata is “an affirmative defense that should be raised by the defending party” as a matter of “both federal and Tennessee law,” Hutcherson v. Lauderdale Cty., Tenn., 326 F.3d 747, 757 (6th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted), “a court may take the initiative to assert the res judicata defense sua sponte in ‘special circumstances.’” Id. (quoting Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 412 (2000)).

Migra, 465 U.S. at 85 ; Hutcherson v. Lauderdale Cty., Tenn., 326 F.3d 747, 758 (6th Cir. 2003).

Nonetheless, “where a purely legal issue provides alternative grounds to uphold the judgment of the district court,” we may reach the issue as long as “the record permits its resolution as a matter of law.” Hutcherson v. Lauderdale Cty., Tennessee, 326 F.3d 747, 756 (6th Cir. 2003).

Accordingly, “[r]es judicata requires [this Court] to give the same effect to the Tennessee state court judgment as would another Tennessee state court.” Hutcherson v. Lauderdale Cnty., Tenn., 326 F.3d 747, 758 (6th Cir.2003).

See, e.g., Romain, 836 F.2d at 244-45 ; cf. Hutcherson v. Lauderdale Cnty., Tenn., 326 F.3d 747, 759-60 (6th Cir.2003).

But because the district court expressly applied Ohio’s law of res judicata, not the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, its sua sponte addressing of the issue cannot be justified as a jurisdictional inquiry. *327 Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure lists res judicata as an affirmative defense available to the defending party, and “[cjourts generally lack the ability to raise an affirmative defense sua sponte.” Hutcherson, 326 F.3d at 757.

Hutcherson v. Lauderdale Cnty., Tenn., 326 F.3d 747, 759 (6th Cir.2003) (citing Cihlar, 39 S.W.3d at 181 ).

Collateral estoppel “thus precludes our review of the issues raised in this action.” Hutcherson, 326 F.3d at 759.

Willis, C.P.A., Inc. v. BNSF Ry., 531 F.3d 1282, 1297-98 (10th Cir.2008); Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, 326 F.3d 747, 756-57 (6th Cir. 2003); Jackson v. North Bank Towing Corp., 213 F.3d 885 , 889-90 (5th Cir.2000); Bechtold v. City of Rosemount, 104 F.3d 1062, 1068-69 (8th Cir.1997); 18 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R.

Furthermore, “[c]ourts generally lack the ability to raise an affirmative defense sua sponte.” Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, Tenn., 326 F.3d 747, 757 (6th Cir.2003).

A minor addendum to the AcmeTolTest litigation would have been substantially more efficient than a completely separate suit. 2 See Hutcherson v. Lauder-dale County, Tennessee, 326 F.3d 747, 757 (6th Cir.2003) (acknowledging that a district court can raise res judicata sua sponte for judicial economy reasons).

While the Court may raise res judicata issues sua sponte, see Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, Tenn., 326 F.3d 747, 757 (6th Cir.2003) (citing Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 412 , 120 S.Ct. 2304 , 147 L.Ed.2d 374 (2000)), we note that application of the doctrine in this case would be inappropriate since Ogle’s allegedly defamatory statements (made outside of the administrative proceedings) constitute separate and distinct injuries, see Black v. Ryder/P.I.E.

However, in this case, Macy is precluded from arguing that the underlying incidents did not occur by the doctrine of issue preclusion.5 5 Neither party raised issue preclusion in this appeal, and “[c]ourts generally lack the ability to raise an affirmative defense sua sponte.” Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, Tenn., 326 F.3d 747, 757 (6th Cir. 2003).

Neither party raised issue preclusion in this appeal, and "[cjourts generally lack the ability to raise an affirmative defense sua sponte.” Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, Tenn., 326 F.3d 747, 757 (6th Cir.2003).

Res Judicata and Rooker-Feldman Res Judicata applies to bar subsequent re-litigation of “ ‘all claims that were actually litigated or could have been litigated in the first suit between the same parties.’ Four elements must be established before res judicata can be asserted as a defense: (1) the underlying judgment must have been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) the same parties were involved in both suits; (3) the same cause of action was involved in both …

“Res judicata requires us to give the same effect to the Tennessee state court judgment as would another Tennessee state court.” Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, 326 F.3d 747, 758 (6th Cir.2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1738 ; Marrese v. Am.

Where a federal plaintiff is attempting to attack an issue that was already litigated in state court, and “ 'the injury alleged resulted from the state court judgment itself, Rooker-Feldman directs that the lower federal courts lack jurisdiction.’ ” Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, 326 F.3d 747, 755 (6th Cir.2003) (quoting Garry v. Geils, 82 F.3d 1362, 1365 (7th Cir.1996)).

In determining whether a claim is in the first category, we look to the nature of the relief demanded and the particular injury alleged; “ ‘the fundamental and appropriate question to ask is whether the injury alleged by the federal plaintiff resulted from the state court judgment itself or is distinct from that judgment.’ ” Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, 326 F.3d 747, 755 (6th Cir.2003).

In determining whether a claim is in the first category, we look to the nature See Peterson Novelties, Inc. v. City of Berkley, 305 F.3d 386 , of the relief demanded and the particular injury alleged; “‘the 391 (6th Cir. 2002); Anderson v. Charter Township of fundamental and appropriate question to ask is whether the Ypsilanti, 266 F.3d 487, 492-94 (6th Cir. 2001) (applying injury alleged by the federal plaintiff resulted from the state “inextricably intertwined” test to hol…

Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, Tennessee, 326 F.3d 747, 755-56 (6th Cir. 2003).

See Garry, 82 F.3d at 1365; Kenmen, 314 F.3d at 475 ; Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, 326 F.3d 747, 755 (6th Cir.2003); Howell v. Supreme Court of Texas, 885 F.2d 308 (5th Cir.1989). .

See Garry, 82 F.3d at 1365 ; Kenmen, 314 F.3d at 475 ; Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, 326 F.3d 747, 755 (6th Cir.2003); Howell v. Supreme Court of Texas, 885 F.2d 308 (5th Cir.1989). 5 The suggestion in the concurrence that Rooker compels a different result is strained.

See Hutcherson v. Lauderdale Cnty., 326 F.3d 747 , 758 n.3 (6th ‘Cir. 2003).

See Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, 326 F.3d 747, 757 (6th Cir. 2003) (noting that “[c]ourts generally lack the ability to raise an affirmative defense sua sponte” outside “special circumstances”) (citation omitted).

See Hutcherson v. Lauderdale Cnty., 326 F.3d 747 , 758 n.3 (6th Cir. 2003) (citations omitted).

See Hutcherson v. Lauderdale Cnty., 326 F.3d 747 , 758 n.3 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Charles Alan Wright, The Law of Federal Courts § 100A, at 722–23 (5th ed. 1994); Black’s Law Dictionary 1312 (7th ed. 1999)).

Res judicata extends both to the parties to a prior action and those with an “identity of interest,” or “a mutual or successive interest to the same rights.” Id.; see Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, Tennessee, 326 F.3d 747, 759 (6th Cir. 2003).

See Hutchinson v. Lauderdale County, 326 F.3d 747 , 755 (6th Cir. 2003).

See Hutcherson v. Lauderdale Cnty., 326 F.3d 747 , 758 n.3 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Charles Alan Wright, The Law of Federal Courts § 100A, at 722–23 (5th ed. 1994); Black’s Law Dictionary 1312 (7th ed. 1999)).

See Hutcherson v. Lauderdale Cty., Tenn., 326 F.3d 747, 756-57 (6th Cir. 2003) (collecting cases where courts considered collateral estoppel sua sponte) (“[W]e have not failed to exercise our discretion to reach an issue that the parties have not briefed where it involves a pure question of law that cries out for resolution.” (quotations omitted)).

See Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County , 326 F.3d 747 , 755 (6th Cir. 2003) (" Rooker - Feldman should be considered first since its application strips federal courts of jurisdiction and the ability to hear a res judicata, or other affirmative defense." (citations omitted) ); Neff v. Flagstar Bank, FSB , 520 F. App'x. 323 , 326 (6th Cir. 2013) ("Unlike res judicata, the conceptually related Rooker - Feldman doctrine is jurisdictional and therefore may properly be raised by the …

See Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, 326 F.3d 747, 755 (6th Cir. 2003) (“Rooker-Feldman should be considered first since its application strips federal courts of jurisdiction and the ability to hear a res judicata, or other affirmative defense.” (citations omitted)); Neff v. Flagstar Bank, FSB, 520 F. App’x. 323, 326 (6th Cir. 2014) (“Unlike res judicata, the conceptually related Rooker-Feldman doctrine is jurisdictional and therefore may properly be raised by the court sua …

See Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, Tennessee, 326 F.3d 747, 755 (6th Cir.2003) (rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc denied).

See Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County, Tenn., 326 F.3d 747, 755 (6th Cir.2003). 2 .