Res Judicata
The plaintiff “Citibank” brought a claim for payment of a delinquent credit card account of the defendant “Garabedian” on which the court entered summary judgment for Citibank. The case arose out of Garabedian’s failure to make payments on either his Visa card or his MasterCard which he had applied for, received, and used from Citibank. On April 8, 2005, Citibank brought a claim in Lawrence district court for the unpaid balance on his Visa card, and a default judgment for the plaintiff was entered on that claim when Garabedian failed to answer. On October 5th, 2006, Citibank filed an action to collect the balance owed on Garabedian’s MasterCard account. The case was dismissed on February 5th, 2007 pursuant to rule 4(j) for Citibank’s failure to effect timely service of process. On January 14, 2008, Citibank brought the same action a second time and both parties moved for summary judgment pursuant to Mass. R. Civ. P., Rule 56. Garabedian claimed that res judicata barred this action because the action had already been dismissed, and in the alternative because Citibank was obligated to bring this action with the first collection action in 2005. The trial court denied Garabedian’s motion and awarded summary judgment for Citibank. The Appellate Division affirmed that decision.
The Appellate Division first stated that the fact that Citibank’s previous action was dismissed under rule 4(j) does not give rise to an issue of res judicata because a dismissal under this rule, unless otherwise noted, is “without prejudice” and that such a dismissal is not a final judgment on the merits. Thus the claim can be brought again without res judicata applying. Secondly, the Appellate Division stated that even though both cards were owned by Garabedian and were through the same bank, because each card carried with it a separate billing statement, conditions, and account numbers the two collection actions did not necessarily have to be brought in the earlier action. Although the parties were in privity in the first Visa card case and the default judgment operated as a final judgment for res judicata purposes; because the two cards and evidence about the accounts did not arise out of the same transaction or series of connected transactions, all three elements were not satisfied to prove res judicata. The denial of Garabedian’s motion for summary judgment and the order of summary judgment for Citibank were both affirmed by the Appellate Division.- Prepared by AEK
