ÿWPC„" š¢jÖUêÄêKEÔæ9`Þ”Mw”ØTÀâó1é.ýW$ՙš>'G®xÁ:Š2UqFVê-¯Úôõ)ÍBP…4ØF»éFDzº+ªùû6Ú8ŒÅªò7w:RÄК-,©¨9Ÿ3Ô[1µ¼-cÝê"]½tž-Qª i%£¨ÈàÃÝtÓ< `F„W?!áXa–_ÞT/#8‡…PCå+TÔRq§2}Uoò%‰5°I]q/`Þ?ñ& ®÷¤êsâ1”6NbÑÖMe<žEÛ“Î 6ŽIœ[¨…z?ªÔ÷„¸®ƒÌ*!î*ãca †Ý'gº‹2Të¶øT¦6è§fð’bøËK[Ù5‘|ïñ¯&8&¡# _×ÕÌèبdçÒ¼%Ž†a×÷­{¬¦Ïoù‰Ô'+á:~*6n¿ê >ÌP TIÕÆT)jŠ=`D†ý´§]ÒM>+}oͤ²z[«Öèì©ÕÏ8¸ý>8ÞØÚ„«šÁ]{^ÎÅožéÖzr®¯*ù¨*;<+Á[ŸÚžEàLÜ\žág „š©Ý™MFHx’'èPÁ­e´wöȧŠ,WfŸŠŒiÖ0*ÑOÏ@’úÆdob#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U#N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz UN‘ Æß Æ¥ Æk Æ1Ê÷NÁ 0 DÃEŠ›êµpŸŸøl              bwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww 0 ë Bjj 0¤‡ D5+ D-` 0K ASØÆ+ 0¤ñ 0D•! A«Ù!˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»§†b+s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular8n_+ing€‡¤ ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ÀÝ ƒRs}$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€underlying€facts€of€this€case€are€not€relevant€to€this€appeal.(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  €Ý ƒRs}$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€a€prior€holding€this€court€stated:Ð ° ÐÌà8  àThe€rule€[of€òòres€judicataóó]€requires€that€the€whole€subject€of€the€litigation€be€brought€forward€by€theÐ 8ˆ Ðparties,€and€the€judgment€concludes€all€matters,€whether€of€action€or€defense,€legally€pertaining€to€thatÐ üL Ðsubject€which,€by€the€exercise€of€reasonable€diligence,€might€have€been€brought€forward.ÐÀÐ Ð  ÐÌòòMcKinney€v.€Widner,€óó746€S.W.2d€699,€705€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987). Ý ƒRs}$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€complaint€alleged€the€procedural€history€of€the€litigation€over€this€dispute,€but€no€further€dealings€betweenÐ ° Ðthe€parties. àÝ ƒRs}$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€complaint€alleged€that€D&C€was€owned€by€Dr.€Bruce€and€that€D&C€was€the€employer€of€Appellants. fÝ ƒRs}$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔTo€the€extent€that€Appellantsðð€real€complaint€is€that€the€Chancery€Court€incorrectly€decided€Case€1,€theÐ ° Ðcorrectness€or€incorrectness€of€the€former€adjudication€is€not€before€this€court€in€this€appeal.€€The€proper€method€forÐ tÄ Ðchallenging€the€correctness€of€that€judgment€was€an€appeal€from€it.€€òòÔ_ÔMadyunÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔBallardÔ_Ôóó,€783€S.W.2d€946,€948€(Tenn.Ð 8ˆ ÐCt.€App.€1989). úÝ ƒRs}$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€ð ðwhere€the€former€suit€is€still€pending,€a€judgment€rendered€therein€is€not€res€judicata,ðð€òòÔ_ÔMcBurneyÔ_ÔÐ ° Ðv.€Aldrichóó,€816€S.W.2d€30,€34€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991),€and€the€appeal€of€the€denial€of€the€second€Rule€60.02€motion€isÐ tÄ Ðstill€pending€before€this€court,€the€courtððs€final€order€in€Case€1€is€still€final€for€purposes€of€òòres€judicataóó.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.Ð 8ˆ ÐP.€60.02€states:Ð üL ÐÌà8  àA€motion€under€this€Rule€60.02€does€not€affect€the€finality€of€a€judgment€or€suspend€its€operation,€butÐ „Ô Ðthe€court€may€enter€an€order€suspending€the€operation€of€the€judgment€upon€such€terms€as€to€bond€andÐ H ˜ Ðnotice€as€to€it€shall€seem€proper€pending€the€hearing€of€such€motion.òòóó€Ð \Ð Ð  ÐÌTenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02. îÝ ƒRs}$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAppellees€responded€to€Appellantsðð€statement€of€material€facts,€and€filed€an€unsigned€affidavit€of€Dr.€Bruce. bÝ ƒRs}$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâýò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€motion€for€sanctions€was€based€upon€the€prior€litigation€between€the€parties.€€In€addition€to€sanctions,€theÐ ° Ðmotion€requested€that€Appellants€be€precluded€from€asserting€a€claim€against€Dr.€Bruce€and€D&C.- ù-(|G2s}$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Me»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôâýò»»Ô d(|3IY$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Me»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3IY$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Me»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Me»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Me»»»ÔÑ8€9XXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îDdMeÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Me»îîDd #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓSeptember€7,€2001€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡X9X»¼MeÔÌò òÔ#†¼Me»XX9ö#ÔÔ_ÔYONAÔ_Ô€BOYD,€òòet€al.óó€v.€DONALD€BRUCE,€M.D.,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡X9X»¼MeÔó óÐ úJ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€00C2059€€€€€€Thomas€W.€Brothers,€JudgeÐ æ 6 ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„03211„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€November€2,€Ô_Ô2001Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓThis€appeal€arises€from€the€third€effort€of€the€plaintiffs€to€obtain€compensation€and€otherÐ xÈ  Ðemployment€benefits€from€their€former€employer.€€The€same€claims€were€first€filed€in€ChanceryÐ d´ ÐCourt€against€the€doctor€and€his€management€company,€and€the€complaint€was€dismissed€for€failureÐ P  Ðto€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted€and€failure€to€join€an€indispensable€party.€Ð <Œ ÐThereafter,€the€plaintiffs€filed€suit€in€Chancery€Court€against€the€company€which€supplied€theÐ (x Ðemployee€handbook€and€other€services€to€the€doctor.€€That€case€was€dismissed€on€a€motion€forÐ d Ðsummary€judgment.€€The€plaintiffs€then€again€filed€suit€against€the€doctor„employer€in€Circuit€Court.€Ð P ÐThe€Circuit€Court€dismissed€the€case€by€converting€the€doctor„employerððs€motion€for€Rule€11Ð ì< Ðsanctions€into€a€motion€to€dismiss€on€the€basis€of€òòres€judicataóó.€€The€plaintiffs€now€appeal€thatÐ Ø( Ðdismissal€to€this€court.€€We€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal.Ð Ä ÐÓÚÓÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Circuit€Courtó óÐ œì Ðò òAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ ˆØ ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Me»àX9—#ÔÔ‡X9X.¼MeÔPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòWilliam€B.€Cain,€J.,óó€andÐ `° ÐòòFrank€G.€Clement,€Jr.,€Sp.€J.óó,€joined.Ð L œ ÐÌDavid€E.€Ô_ÔDannerÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellants,€Ô_ÔYonaÔ_Ô€Boyd€and€Brenda€Collier.Ð $"t! ÐÌThomas€L.€Ô_ÔWhitesideÔ_Ô,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€appellees,€Donald€Bruce,€M.D.€and€D&CÐ ü#L# ÐProperty€Ô_ÔMgmtÔ_Ô.€Corporation.Ð è$8 $ ÐÓù ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Me»XX9( #ÔÔ‡X9X»¼MeÔÐ À&"& ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Me»XX9Ò #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X9X»¼MeÔÔ‡ X9XXX9Ôà  àBecause€this€case€is€brought€before€us€on€the€issue€of€òòres€judicataóó,€the€procedural€history€ofÐ ˜(è#( Ðthis€and€related€cases€is€relevant€and,€therefore,€outlined€below.Ð „)Ô$) ÐÌà  àÔ_ÔYonaÔ_Ô€Boyd€and€Brenda€Collier€(ð ðAppellantsðð)€filed€suit€against€Donald€Bruce,€M.D.Ð \+¬&+ Ð(ð ðBruceðð)€and€D&C€Property€Ô_ÔMgmtÔ_Ô.,€Corp.€(ð ðD&Cðð)€(or€collectively€ð ðAppelleesðð)€on€August€19,Ð H,˜', Ð1999,€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€County€seeking€compensation€based€on€an€allegedÐ 4-„(-ý÷ Ðemployer„employee€relationship.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€In€their€complaint,€Appellants€relied€on€an€employee€handbookÐ ° Ðwritten€by€Prime€Focus,€Inc.€(ð ðPrime€Focusðð),€an€Illinois€corporation€that€administered€AppelleesððÐ œì Ðpayroll€and€provided€employee€policies€to€Appellees,€including€the€handbook€outlining€the€rightsÐ ˆØ Ðand€duties€of€employees.€€That€case,€òòÔ_ÔYonaÔ_Ô€Boyd€and€Brenda€Collier€v.€Donald€Bruce,€M.D.,€D&CÐ tÄ ÐProperty€Ô_ÔMgmtÔ_Ô.€Corp.óó,€case€no.€99„2350„II,€will€be€referred€to€as€Case€1.Ð `° ÐÌà  àOn€December€8,€1999,€Ô#†X9XX X9[ #ÔÔ‡ X9XXX9Ôthe€Chancery€Court€ruled€in€Case€1€that€the€Prime€Focus€employeeÐ 8 ˆ Ðhandbook€ð ðunequivocally€Ô_Ôestablish[esÔ_Ô]€the€existence€of€an€employer„employee€relationship€by€andÐ $ t Ðbetween€the€[Appellants]€and€Prime€Focus,€Inc.ðð€and€that€ð ðno€employer„employee€relationshipÐ  ` Ðexisted€between€the€[Appellants]€and€[Bruce]€and€[D&C].ðð€€Further,€the€court€found€that€Bruce€andÐ ü L  ÐD&C׃T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€were€clients€of€Prime€Focus€and,€consequently,€Prime€Focus€was€an€indispensable€party.€Ð è 8  ÐTherefore,€Case€1€was€dismissed€by€the€court€for€failure€to€join€an€indispensable€party,€Prime€Focus,Ð Ô$  Ðand€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted.Ð À  ÐÌà  àAppellants€did€not€appeal€the€Chancery€Courtððs€decision,€but€instead,€after€that€dismissal€wasÐ ˜è  Ðfinal,€filed€suit€against€Prime€Focus€in€Chancery€Court.€€That€case,€òòÔ_ÔYonaÔ_Ô€Boyd€and€Brenda€CollierÐ „Ô  Ðv.€Prime€Focus,€Inc.óó,€case€no.€99„3716„II,€€will€be€referred€to€as€Case€2.€€Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àAfter€filing€suit€against€Prime€Focus€in€Case€2,€Appellants€filed€a€Motion€to€Set€Aside€theÐ H˜ ÐJudgment€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02€in€Case€1€and€to€Consolidate€Case€1€and€Case€2.€€TheÐ 4„ ÐChancery€Court€denied€this€Motion€because€ð ðthe€[Appellants]€did€not€file€a€notice€of€appeal€fromÐ  p Ðthe€Court€Order€[in€Case€1]€which€[Appellant]€now€seeks€to€set€aside.ðð€€Further,€the€Court€found€thatÐ  \ Ðsince€Appellants€ð ðfailed€to€take€the€necessary€legal€steps€to€protect€their€own€interest€in€this€matterÐ øH Ðthey€are€precluded€from€relief€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02.ðð€€Appellants€did€not€appeal€this€secondÐ ä4 Ðorder€in€Case€1.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àIn€their€suit€against€Prime€Focus,€Case€2,€Appellants€attempted€to€amend€their€complaint€toÐ ¨ø Ðadd€Bruce€and€D&C.€€In€granting€a€motion€for€Rule€11€sanctions,Ô#†X9XX X9#ÔÔ‡ X9XXX9Ô€the€trial€court€struck€the€amendedÐ ”ä Ðcomplaint€which,€in€the€words€of€the€court,€ð ðasserted€previously€litigated€claims.ðð€€Further,€in€CaseÐ €Ð Ð2€Prime€Focus€filed€a€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment€based€on€the€fact€that€Prime€Focus€was€notÐ l¼ ÐAppellantsðð€employer.€€The€Chancery€Court€granted€Prime€Focusððs€motion€and€found€that€AppellantsÐ X ¨ Ðwere€not€employed€by€Prime€Focus.€€The€court€found€that€Prime€Focus€was€an€employee€leasingÐ D!” Ðfirm,€primarily€for€purposes€of€consolidating€employees€of€small€businesses€for€purchasing€healthÐ 0"€  Ðinsurance,€and€that€ð ðPrime€Focus€Ô_Ôexercise[dÔ_Ô]€no€control€over€the€hiring,€firing€or€compensationÐ #l! Ðprocedures€or€policies€of€its€small€business€customers€[such€as€Appellees].ðð€€Based€upon€the€loanedÐ $X" Ðservant€doctrine,€the€court€determined€that€Appellants€ð ðmust€be€dealt€with€as€the€servants€of€the€oneÐ ô$D # Ðto€whom€they€were€lent,€Bruce/D&C.ðð€€The€Appellants€appealed€this€decision;€argument€on€thatÐ à%0!$ Ðappeal€was€heard€on€July€10,€2001.Ð Ì&"% ÐÐ ¸'#& Ðà  àÔ#†X9XX X9#ÔÔ‡ X9XXX9ÔOn€October€20,€2000,€Appellants€then€filed€a€Motion€to€Amend€Order€in€Case€1,€the€secondÐ ° Ðmotion€they€filed€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€60.02€in€Case1.€€In€that€motion€Appellants€requestedÐ œì Ðthat€the€court€delete€the€phrase€ð ðfailure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€grantedðð€becauseÐ ˆØ Ðit€was€a€ð ðÔ_ÔconclusoryÔ_Ô€misnomer.ðð€€Appellants€argued€that€the€deletion€of€this€phrase€would€no€longerÐ tÄ Ðmake€the€order€an€adjudication€on€the€merits.€€This€motion€was€denied€on€January€8,€2001,€andÐ `° ÐAppellants€filed€a€notice€that€stated€that€they€ð ðhereby€appeal€.€.€.€the€order€.€.€.€denying€the€motionÐ L œ Ðto€amend€the€courtððs€prior€order€of€December€8,€1999,€announced€in€open€court€on€November€3,Ð 8 ˆ Ð2000.ðð€€That€appeal€is€set€to€be€heard€on€a€later€docket€of€this€court.Ô#†X9XX X9,!#ÔÔ‡ X9XXX9ÔÐ $ t ÐÌà  àPrior€to€filing€the€motion€to€amend€the€order€in€Case€1€in€Chancery€Court,€Appellants€filedÐ ü L  Ðsuit€against€Bruce€and€D&C€in€Circuit€Court€for€Davidson€County,€in€Case€3.€€In€this€most€recentÐ è 8  Ðsuit,€Appellants€claimed€that€they€were€third„party€beneficiaries€of€the€contract€between€Prime€FocusÐ Ô$  Ðand€Bruce€and€D&C€and€that€Appellees€are€liable€under€a€loaned€servant€doctrine.€€Appellants€filedÐ À  Ða€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment.€€In€response,€Appellees€filed,€among€other€things,€a€Motion€for€Ð ¬ü  ÐSanctions€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€11.Ð ˜è  ÐÌà  àThe€Circuit€Court,€after€hearing€arguments€of€counsel€entered€a€final€order€finding€that€Ð pÀ ÐAppelleesðð€ð ðMotion€for€Rule€11€Sanctions€[was]€in€essence€a€Motion€to€Dismiss€.€.€.€predicated€onÐ \¬ Ðthe€ground€that€the€plaintiffsðð€current€action€is€barred€by€the€doctrine€of€òòres€judicataóó.ðð€€The€CourtÐ H˜ Ðfound€that€Appellantsðð€case€should€be€involuntarily€dismissed€on€the€basis€that€òòres€judicataóó€bars€Ð 4„ ÐAppellantsðð€action.€€Appellants€appealed€from€this€dismissal€of€Case€3,€and€that€is€the€subject€€of€theÐ  p Ðcase€before€us.Ô#†X9XX X9%#ÔÐ  \ ÐÌà  àThe€complaint€in€Case€3€recited€the€history€of€the€earlier€litigation€in€this€dispute;€attachedÐ ä4 Ðto€the€complaint€were€the€complaints€which€had€been€filed€in€Cases€1€and€2€as€well€as€the€ChanceryÐ Ð  ÐCourtððs€final€orders.€€The€complaint€(in€Case€3)€states:Ð ¼  ÐÌà8  àà8` Ð Ð àA€court€of€competent€jurisdiction€has€ruled€that€(A)€no€employer„Ð ”ä Ðemployee€relationship€existed€between€the€parties€in€the€instant€actionÐ €Ð Ð[citing€the€attached€final€order€in€Case€1],€(B)€the€employer„employeeÐ l¼ Ðrelationship€existed€between€Plaintiffs€and€Prime€Focus€[citing€theÐ X ¨ Ðattached€final€order€in€Case€2],€(C)€Prime€Focus€is€not€liable€toÐ D!” ÐPlaintiffs€because€the€loaned€servant€doctrine€made€the€DefendantsÐ 0"€  Ðin€the€instant€cause€liable€to€compensate€Plaintiffs.€€Thus,€a€court€ofÐ #l! Ðcompetent€jurisdiction€has€ruled€that€the€Defendants€in€the€instantÐ $X" Ðcase€are€liable€to€compensate€Plaintiffs€although€no€employer„Ð ô$D # Ðemployee€relationship€existed€between€them€[quoting€and€citing€theÐ à%0!$ Ðfinal€order€in€Case€2].ÐÌ&"%` x` x ÐÌà  àAppellants€filed€a€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment,€and€Appellees€responded€with€a€MotionÐ ¤(ô#' Ðfor€Rule€11€Sanctions,€attaching€the€letter€sent€to€Appellantsðð€counsel€in€accordance€with€Tenn.€R.Ð )à$( ÐCiv.€P.€11.03(1)(a),€giving€counsel€twenty„one€days€to€withdraw€the€complaint€in€Case€3.€€The€basisÐ |*Ì%) Ðfor€the€sanctions€motion€was€that€the€complaint€in€Case€3€included€no€factual€basis€which€had€notÐ h+¸&* Ðbeen€raised€in€Case€1€for€liability€of€Bruce€and€D&C€as€employers.€€These€matters€having€beenÐ ° Ðpreviously€litigated,€Appellees€asserted€Appellantsðð€claims€in€Case€3€were€barred€by€the€doctrine€ofÐ œì Ðòòres€judicataóó.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àIn€response€to€the€Rule€11€motion,€Appellants€asserted€that€such€sanctions€were€notÐ `° Ðwarranted€because€the€order€in€Case€1€was€not€a€final€adjudication€on€the€merits,€but€also€assertedÐ L œ Ðthat€the€order€in€Case€2€was€òòres€judicataóó€on€the€issue€of€which€parties€were€the€employers€ofÐ 8 ˆ ÐAppellants.€€The€response€also€asserted€the€Rule€11€motion€was€filed€in€an€attempt€to€obtainÐ $ t Ðdismissal€prior€to€determination€of€Appellantsðð€pending€Motion€for€Summary€Judgment.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€trial€court€determined€that,€contrary€to€Appellantsðð€assertions,€Case€1€had€been€dismissedÐ è 8  Ðfor€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted€as€well€as€failure€to€join€an€indispensableÐ Ô$  Ðparty;€it€was€bound€by€the€Chancery€Court€order€explicitly€stating€Case€1€was€dismissed€for€failureÐ À  Ðto€state€a€claim;€that€the€dismissal€of€Case€1€was€with€prejudice;€and€that€Appellantsðð€claims€wereÐ ¬ü  Ðbarred€by€the€doctrine€of€òòres€judicataóó€since€Appellants€had€ð ðpreviously€litigated€this€matter.ððÐ ˜è  ÐÌà  àòòRes€judicataóó€is€a€claim€preclusion€doctrine€that€promotes€finality€in€litigation.€€òòLien€v.€Couchóó,Ð pÀ Ð993€S.W.2d€53,€55€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998).€€The€doctrine€bars€a€second€suit€between€the€same€partiesÐ \¬ Ðon€the€same€cause€of€action€as€to€all€issues€which€were€or€could€have€been€litigated€in€the€formerÐ H˜ Ðsuit.€€òòRichardson€v.€Tennessee€Bd.€of€Dentistryóó,€913€S.W.2d€446,€459€(Tenn.€1995);€òòÔ_ÔMassengillÔ_Ô€v.Ð 4„ ÐScottóó,€738€S.W.2d€629,€631€(Tenn.€1987).Ð  p ÐÌà  àThe€principle€of€claim€preclusion€prevents€parties€from€splitting€their€cause€of€action;€itÐ øH Ðrequires€parties€to€raise€in€a€single€lawsuit€all€the€grounds€for€recovery€arising€from€a€singleÐ ä4 Ðtransaction.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòLienóó,€993€S.W.2d€at€56.€€Consequently,€the€doctrine€of€òòres€judicataóó€bars€the€litigationÐ Ð  Ðnot€only€of€those€matters€actually€determined€in€the€prior€action,€but€also€those€that€reasonably€couldÐ ¼  Ðhave€been€litigated€in€the€prior€action.€€òòBrown€v.€Brownóó,€29€S.W.3d€491,€495€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€2000).€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àIt€has€long€been€the€rule€in€this€state€that€not€only€issues€which€were€actuallyÐ €Ð Ðdetermined,€but€all€claims€and€issues€which€are€relevant€and€which€could€reasonablyÐ l¼ Ðhave€been€litigated€in€a€prior€action,€are€foreclosed€by€the€judgment€therein.ÐX ¨Ð Ð  ÐÌòòAmerican€Ô_ÔNatððlÔ_Ô€Bank€and€Trust€v.€Clarkóó,€586€S.W.2d€825,€826€(Tenn.€1979).€€Where€all€ð ðclaims€andÐ 0"€  Ðtheoriesðð€asserted€in€the€later€litigation€had€accrued€and€were€available€for€litigation€in€the€priorÐ #l! Ðaction,€òòres€judicataóó€applies.€€òòIdóó.€at€827.€€Thus,€the€former€judgment€is€conclusive€ð ðnot€only€as€toÐ $X" Ðmatters€actually€put€at€issue,€but€equally€to€those€which€by€due€diligence€of€the€litigant€.€.€.€mightÐ ô$D # Ðhave€been€put€in€issue€and€determined.ðð€€òòBrownóó,€29€S.W.3d€at€496€(quoting€òòHayes€v.€Civil€Serv.Ð ° ÐÔ_ÔCommððnÔ_Ô.€of€Metro.€Ô_ÔGovððtÔ_Ôóó,€907€S.W.2d€826,€828€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995)).€€A€prior€judgment€does€not,Ð œì Ðhowever,€operate€to€prohibit€the€later€consideration€of€rights€that€had€not€accrued€at€the€time€of€theÐ ˆØ Ðearlier€proceeding€or€the€re„examination€of€the€same€question€between€the€same€parties€when€theÐ tÄ Ðfacts€have€changed€or€new€facts€have€occurred€that€have€altered€the€partiesðð€legal€rights€and€relations.€Ð `° ÐòòLienóó,€993€S.W.2d€at€56;€òòWhite€v.€Whiteóó,€876€S.W.2d€837,€839„40€(Tenn.€1994).Ð L œ ÐÌà  àThe€party€asserting€the€defense€must€demonstrate:€(1)€that€the€underlying€judgment€wasÐ $ t Ðrendered€by€a€court€of€competent€jurisdiction;€(2)€that€the€same€parties€were€involved€in€both€suits;Ð  ` Ð(3)€that€the€same€cause€of€action€was€involved€in€both€suits;€and€(4)€that€the€underlying€judgmentÐ ü L  Ðwas€final€and€on€the€merits.€€òòLienóó,€993€S.W.2d€at€56;€òòCollins€v.€Greene€Co.€Bankóó,€916€S.W.2d€941,Ð è 8  Ð945€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995).Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àThe€prior€case€upon€which€the€claim€of€òòres€judicataóó€rests€herein€is€the€original€action€broughtÐ ¬ü  Ðby€Appellants€in€Chancery€Court€against€the€same€defendants,€Case€1.€€The€Chancery€Court€was€aÐ ˜è  Ðcourt€of€competent€jurisdiction.€€Chancery€Court€had€jurisdiction€over€the€parties,€and€the€partiesÐ „Ô  Ðwere€clearly€the€same.Ð pÀ ÐÌà  àBoth€lawsuits€involve€Appellantsðð€attempts€to€collect€additional€compensation€on€the€basisÐ H˜ Ðof€terms€of€employment€they€allege€were€set€out€in€the€employee€handbook.€€Both€lawsuits€involveÐ 4„ Ðthe€same€dates€of€employment.€€Appellantsðð€employment€was€terminated€in€1999,€prior€to€theirÐ  p Ðbringing€Case€1;€no€new€facts€occurring€since€that€time€have€been€alleged€in€the€complaint€in€CaseÐ  \ Ð3.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€conclude€both€Case€1€and€Case€3€involve€the€same€cause€of€action.€€Appellants€argue€thatÐ øH Ðfacts€revealed€in€subsequent€lawsuits€regarding€who€was€the€real€employer€and€the€decisions€of€theÐ ä4 Ðcourt€thereon€have€changed€the€cause€of€action.€€We€disagree.€€A€change€in€Appellantsðð€theory€ofÐ Ð  Ðliability€does€not€create€a€new€cause€of€action.€€Tennessee€law€is€clear€that€òòres€judicataóó€bars€theÐ ¼  Ðlitigation€of€all€issues€that€could€have€been€litigated€and€all€facts€pertaining€to€those€issues€that€could€Ð ¨ø Ðhave€been€brought€forward.€€ð ðThe€fact€that€[plaintiff]€has€identified€another€argument€to€support€hisÐ ”ä Ðconstitutional€challenge€does€not€alter€the€fact€that€the€issue€was€resolved€in€the€first€.€.€.€proceeding.ðð€Ð €Ð ÐòòRichardsonóó,€913€S.W.2d€at€461.Ð l¼ ÐÌà  àThe€final€requirement€for€application€of€the€doctrine€of€òòres€judicataóó€is€that€the€underlyingÐ D!” Ðjudgment€must€have€been€a€final€adjudication€on€the€merits.€€òòRoy€v.€Diamondóó,€16€S.W.3d€783,€787Ð 0"€  Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€It€must€have€been€final€and€must€have€concluded€the€rights€of€the€partyÐ #l! Ðagainst€whom€the€òòres€judicataóó€defense€is€asserted.€€òòRichardsonóó,€913€S.W.2d€at€459.€€In€Tennessee,Ð $X" Ða€judgment€is€final€ð ðwhen€it€decides€and€disposes€of€the€òòwholeóó€merits€of€the€case€leaving€nothing€forÐ ô$D # Ðthe€further€judgment€of€the€court.ðð€€òòRichardsonóó,€913€S.W.2d€at€460€(quoting€òòSaunders€v.Ð à%0!$ ÐMetropolitan€Ô_ÔGovððtÔ_Ô€of€Nashville€&€Davidson€Countyóó,€214€Tenn.€€703,€383€S.W.2d€28,€31€(1964)).€Ð Ì&"% Ðâ âWhile€denial€of€a€motion€to€dismiss€does€not€constitute€a€final€judgment,€òòidóó.,€the€grant€of€such€aÐ ¸'#& Ðmotion€is€a€final€judgment.€€The€Chancery€Courtððs€judgment€in€Case€1€entered€on€December€8,€1999,Ð ° Ðwas€a€final€adjudication,€and€that€judgment€was€not€appealed.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ÔÐ œì Ðâ âÌà  àWhether€a€dismissal€is€a€judgment€which€invokes€the€doctrine€of€òòres€judicataóó€depends€uponÐ tÄ Ðwhether€the€dismissal€was€made€on€the€merits.€€òòLewis€v.€Muchmoreóó,€26€S.W.3d€632,€637€(Tenn.€Ct.Ð `° ÐApp.€2000);€òòHart€v.€Tourteóó,€10€S.W.3d€263,€267€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999).€€In€òòTourteóó,€this€courtÐ L œ Ðdetermined€that€dismissal€of€a€prior€proceeding€because€plaintiff€failed€to€attach€a€properlyÐ 8 ˆ Ðauthenticated€foreign€judgment€to€his€petition€for€registration€was€dismissal€on€a€non„merits€groundÐ $ t Ðand,€therefore,€òòres€judicataóó€did€not€preclude€the€second€lawsuit.€€òòTourteóó,€10€S.W.3d€at€267.€Ð  ` ÐSimilarly,€in€òòMuchmoreóó,€this€court€determined€that€the€record€prevented€us€from€determiningÐ ü L  Ðwhether€the€first€litigation€had€been€dismissed€because€of€a€procedural€defect€or€on€the€merits.€Ð è 8  ÐòòMuchmoreóó,€26€S.W.3d€at€637.€€Because€the€party€asserting€òòres€judicataóó€as€a€defense€bears€the€burdenÐ Ô$  Ðto€substantiate€it,€we€held€the€later€lawsuit€was€not€barred.€€òòId.Ð À  ÐÌà  àóóThus,€dismissal€for€procedural€defects€is€not€a€determination€on€the€merits€so€as€to€supportÐ ˜è  Ða€claim€of€òòres€judicataóó.€€Where,€however,€a€complaint€has€been€dismissed€for€failure€to€state€a€claimÐ „Ô  Ðupon€which€relief€can€be€granted,€such€a€dismissal€is€considered€an€adjudication€on€the€merits.€Ð pÀ ÐòòRampy€v.€ICI€Acrylics,€Incóó.,€898€S.W.2d€196,€198€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994);òò€Rainey€BrothersÐ \¬ ÐConstruction€Company,€Inc.€v.€Memphis€&€Shelby€County€Bd.€of€Adjustmentóó,€967€F.Supp.€998,€1003Ð H˜ Ð(W.D.€Tenn.€1997).€€This€holding€has€two€bases.€€First,Ð 4„ ÐÌà8  àA€rule€12.02(6)€motion€to€dismiss,€like€the€demurrer€under€earlier€Tennessee€law,Ð  \ Ðtests€the€legal€sufficiency€of€the€partyððs€pleading.€€òòSee€Cornpropst€v.€Sloanóó,€528Ð øH ÐS.W.2d€188,€190€(Tenn.€1975).€€In€a€case€predating€Rule€12.02(6),€the€TennesseeÐ ä4 ÐSupreme€Court€held€that€the€sustaining€of€a€demurrer€has€the€effect€of€a€decision€onÐ Ð  Ðthe€merits€regardless€of€whether€the€factual€allegations€are€sufficient€to€support€aÐ ¼  Ðcause€of€action.€€òòIsham€v.€City€of€Harrimanóó,€223€Tenn.€461,€447€S.W.2d€364€(1969).ШøÐ Ð  ÐÌòòDyer€v.€Itnera€Corp.óó,€870€F.2d€1063,€1066€(6th€Cir.€1989).€òòóó€The€òòDyeróó€court€also€found€that€Tenn.Ð €Ð ÐR.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6)€is€based€upon€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€12(b)(6)€and€that€in€federal€courts€a€dismissalÐ l¼ Ðpursuant€to€that€rule€is€considered€ð ða€decision€on€the€merits€with€full€òòres€judicataóó€effect.ððòò€Id.óóÐ X ¨ Ðâ âÐ D!” Ðà  àSince€1989,€when€the€òòDyeróó€case€was€decided,€Tennessee€courts€have€reaffirmed€that€theÐ ° Ðâ âpurpose€of€a€Rule€12.02(6)€motion€is€to€test€the€legal€sufficiency€of€the€complaint€or€petition.€€òò421Ð œì ÐCorp.€v.€Metropolitan€Govððt€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€Co.óó,€36€S.W.3d€469,€479€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð ˆØ Ð2000);€òòHarvey€v.€Ford€Motor€Credit€Co.óó,€8€S.W.3d€273,€276€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1999);€òòRampy€v.€ICIÐ tÄ ÐAcrylics,€Incóó.,€898€S.W.2d€196,€198€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994);€òòDobbs€v.€Guentheróó,€846€S.W.2d€270,Ð `° Ð273€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€Therefore,€as€a€Rule€12.02(6)€motion€tests€the€legal€sufficiency€of€theÐ L œ Ðcomplaint,€a€dismissal€under€that€rule€is€an€adjudication€on€the€merits.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àThe€second€basis€for€the€conclusion€that€a€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6)€dismissal€is€a€dismissalÐ  ` Ðon€the€merits€is€found€in€Rule€41.02(3)€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€Procedure,€which€states:Ð ü L  ÐÌà8  àUnless€the€court€in€its€order€for€dismissal€otherwise€specifies,€a€dismissal€under€thisÐ Ô$  Ðsubdivision€and€any€dismissal€not€provided€for€in€this€Rule€41,€other€than€a€dismissalÐ À  Ðfor€lack€of€jurisdiction€or€for€improper€venue€or€for€lack€of€an€indispensable€party,Ð ¬ü  Ðoperates€as€an€adjudication€on€the€merits.Иè Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àBecause€dismissal€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€is€not€one€of€the€exceptions€listed,€the€plainÐ pÀ Ðlanguage€of€this€rule€requires€a€conclusion€that€such€a€dismissal€is€an€adjudication€on€the€merits.€€TheÐ \¬ Ðtrial€court€in€Case€1€did€not€specify€that€its€decision€was€not€to€act€as€a€final€adjudication.€€Therefore,Ð H˜ Ðwe€hold€that€the€dismissal€of€Appellantsðð€first€case,€Case€1,€on€the€Rule€12.02(6)€motion€was€anÐ 4„ Ðadjudication€on€the€merits.Ô_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_ÔÐ  p Ðà  àÌà  àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€this€lawsuit€because€Appellantsðð€claimsÐ øH Ðwere€barred€by€the€doctrine€of€òòres€judicataóó.Ð ä4 ÐÌÔ‡ X9XXX9Ôà  àAppellants€also€argue€that€the€trial€court€should€have€granted€their€Motion€for€SummaryÐ ¼  ÐJudgment€because€Appellees€did€not€respond€to€the€motion€by€filing€affidavits€setting€forth€factsÐ ¨ø Ðshowing€a€genuine€issue€of€fact.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€However,€this€argument€ignores€one€of€the€basic€requirements€forÐ ”ä Ðthe€grant€of€summary€judgment:€the€filings€must€show€there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€to€any€materialÐ €Ð Ðfact€ò òandó ó€the€moving€party€must€be€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€56.04;Ð l¼ ÐòòÔ_ÔBainÔ_Ô€v.€Wellsóó,€936€S.W.2d€618,€622€(Tenn.€1997);€òòÔ_ÔCarvellÔ_Ô€v.€Bottomsóó,€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.Ð \ ¬ Ð1995);€òòByrd€v.€Hallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€214€(Tenn.€1993).€€Thus,€summary€judgment€should€beÐ H!˜ Ðgranted€only€when€the€undisputed€facts€reasonably€support€one€conclusion,€namely€that€the€movingÐ 4"„  Ðparty€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€òòMcCall€v.€Wilderóó,€913€S.W.2d€150,€153€(Tenn.Ð  #p! Ð1995).Ð  $\" Ðâ âÐ ø$H # Ðà  àObviously,€a€party€whose€complaint€fails€to€state€a€claim€for€relief€is€not€entitled€to€aÐ ° Ðâ âjudgment€as€a€matter€of€law.€€Appellants€were€properly€denied€summary€judgment€because€theirÐ œì Ðlawsuit€was€precluded€by€òòres€judicataóó.Ð ˆØ ÐÔ#†X9XX X9·f#ÔÌà  àAppellants€also€argue€that€the€trial€court€improperly€converted€Appelleesðð€Rule€11€MotionÐ `° Ðfor€Sanctions€as€a€Motion€to€Dismiss.׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€A€trial€court€need€not€wait€for€a€party€to€file€a€motion€toÐ L œ Ðdismiss€under€Rule€12.02(6),€for€it€possesses€the€authority€to€dismiss€the€petition€Ô_ÔsuaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔsponteÔ_Ô€if€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðpleading€fails€to€state€a€claim€on€which€relief€can€be€granted.€€òòÔ_ÔHuckebyÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔSpanglerÔ_Ôóó,€521€S.W.2d€568,Ð $ t Ð571€(Tenn.€1975);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòLackey€v.€Carsonóó,€886€S.W.2d€232,€232€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).Ð  ` ÐÌÔ‡ X9XXX9Ôà8  àDefenses€of€failure€to€state€a€claim€and€the€lack€of€jurisdiction€of€the€court€are€notÐ è 8  Ðwaived€by€filing€an€answer€to€the€complaint.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€Proc.€12.08.€€They€mayÐ Ô$  Ðbe€raised€at€any€time€even€at€a€trial€on€the€merits,€òòidóó.,€and€the€court€has€the€authorityÐ À  Ðto€dismiss€the€complaint€Ô_ÔsuaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔsponteÔ_Ô.Ьü Ð Ð  ÐÌòòÔ_ÔCockrillÔ_Ô€v.€Everettóó,€958€S.W.2d€133,€135€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997)€(citing€òòÔ_ÔHuckebyÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔSpanglerÔ_Ôóó,€521Ð „Ô  ÐS.W.2d€at€511).Ô#†X9XX X9rp#ÔÐ pÀ ÐÌà  àWe€find€that€the€trial€court€appropriately€used€its€authority€to€dismiss€Appellantsðð€case.€€TheÐ H˜ Ðcourtððs€action€was€in€response€to€the€motion€for€sanctions€and€was€Ô_ÔbasedÔ_Ô€upon€the€history€of€priorÐ 4„ Ðlitigation€between€the€parties€as€set€out€in€the€complaint€as€well€as€in€the€motion€for€sanctions.€Ð  p ÐAppellants€were€certainly€aware€of€the€issues€and€argued€in€the€complaint€the€reasons€why€òòresÐ  \ Ðjudicataóó€did€not€preclude€this€lawsuit.Ð øH ÐÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€This€cause€is€remanded€to€Circuit€Court€ofÐ Ð  ÐDavidson€County€for€any€necessary€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Costs€onÐ ¼  Ðappeal€are€taxed€to€Appellants.Ð ¨ø ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð X ¨ Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÐ D!” Ð