WPC ~7wSH1r^{.*mN#~+tq\Rе+9ǎEV*jIUK?؃c\uQElH'{tr [Tŕt,QkO C vA9mL6Ll-Ze&.ѡUT ~P0"{`IA `!.5JԿC*lȃk2t@npDTqw =L$ VDֿ&+5@&>S9n6SE:xyyw 8ķ<*΁VL'? fxK&ֻxMQ3(^.unx&#v~& F^/cn9YI mWK':ª?ǩc!&֯Ugu"ٔ,8 hR nYmpC܆PhYsƁI%i|\8%qceMWb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz UN   k 1NEb 0     B 0 D3 D- 0K ASb 0{ 0D AcHP LaserJet 5,,,,09u) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularfdJ) Ҝ C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 - -(|G2$ !.8ddd8         0  < d(|3$ !.8ddd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8ddd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8ddd8     _  d8XXdd8  р@ dINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATMEMPHIS#d#Ԉ ,   October10,2000Session X XXd #dXX#DOUGLASR._SHANKLIN_,M.D.v.UTMEDICALGROUP,INC.XXd   ` @@ DirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforShelbyCounty  h @@No.302611T.D.RobertL.Childers,Judge  X @@*AV) ` dE<` A (  @@TTNo.W199901982_COA_ԄR3CVFiledNovember6,2000 '  AV) ` dE<` A       X.XXXThisappealarisesfromatrialcourtsfindingthatasubsequentactionbyDoctorwasbarredunder  thedoctrineofresjudicataduetothecourtsdecisioninanearliercase.Onappeal,Doctorargued  thathisearlieractionforagediscriminationandretaliationinviolationoftheTennesseeHuman  RightsAct wasnotthesameasthecurrentaction,whichinvolvesbreachofcontractandunjust z enrichment.Weaffirmthetrialcourtsruling.  j  #XXX X.##dXX#XXd Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed;and F Remanded  6   #dX#XX.dDavidR.Farmer,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S. f andHollyK.Lillard,J.,joined. V DonaldA.Donati,Memphis,Tennessee,andWilliamB.Ryan,Memphis,Tennessee,forthe 6 appellant,DouglasR.Shanklin,M.D. & BradleyE.Trammell,Memphis,Tennessee,fortheappellee,UTMedicalGroup,Inc.   : OPINION #dXXi#XXd "! #dXX #  XXd X.XXX   OnJune30,1997,Dr.DouglasR.Shanklin(Dr.Shanklin)filed, prose ,asuitagainstUT r$# MedicalGroup(UTMG)foragediscriminationandretaliation inviolationoftheTennesseeHuman ^% $ RightsAct.ThebasisforhisagediscriminationclaimwasthatUTMGhadhiredayoungerwoman N&!% toperformmanyofhispreviousduties.ThisactresultedinadecreaseinDr.Shanklinssalary . Dr. :'"& ShanklinsretaliationactionallegedthatUTMGhadretaliatedagainsthimforhisoppositionto *(z#' discriminatoryemploymentpractices.ThespecificretaliationallegedwasthatUTMGhadrevoked )f$( hisusualteachingassignments,thusdenyinghimtheopportunitytofulfillthedutiesforwhichhe *R%) washired.Thetrialcourt,notingthatUTMGhadnotbeenservedwithacopyofthecomplaintand *>&* summonsuntilSeptember24,1997,dismissedtheactionuponUTMGsmotionforinsufficient +*'+  serviceofprocess.ThetrialcourtnotedthatDr.ShanklinhadviolatedRules3and4ofthe ,(, TennesseeRulesofCivilProcedurebyfailingtoproperlyserveUTMGpriortotherunningofthe  statuteoflimitations.     InJuneof1999,Dr.Shanklinfiledanactionforbreachofcontractandunjustenrichment t againstUTMG.UTMGfiledamotiontodismissoralternativelyforsummaryjudgmentbasedupon ` theargumentthattheactionwasbarredbythedoctrineofresjudicataduetothecourtsdecisionin L  theearliercase.ThetrialcourtagreedwithUTMGandenteredanordergrantingthemotion.Dr. 8  Shanklinfiledthisappealarguingthathis1997proceedingsandhiscurrentproceedingsdonot $ t involvethesamecauseofaction,and,assuch,thedoctrineofresjudicatadoesnotapply.  `   Theissuepresentedbytheappellantonappeal,asweperceiveit,isasfollows:  8    8   ` DidthetrialcourterrinfindingthatDr.Shanklinsclaimsforbreachof   contractandunjustenrichmentwerebarredbythedoctrineofresjudicata?      ResJudicata        ThedoctrineofresjudicataiswellestablishedinTennesseecourts. [R]esjudicatabarsa \ secondsuitbetweenthesamepartiesortheirpriviesonthesamecauseofactionwithrespecttoall H issueswhichwereorcouldhavebeenlitigatedintheformersuit. Hamptonv.TennesseeTruck 4 Sales,Inc. ,993S.W.2d643,645(Tenn.Ct.App.1999)(citing Goekev.Woods ,777S.W.2d347,  p 349(Tenn.1989)).  \ 8  The[doctrine]ofresjudicataisbasedontheprinciplenotonlythatthesameparties 4 inthesamecapacities,shouldnotberequiredtolitigateanewamatterwhichmight   havebeendeterminedandsettledintheformerlitigation,but...thatlitigation   shouldbedeterminedwithreasonableexpedition,andnotbeprotractedthrough  inattentionandlackofdiligence.    Jordanv.Johns ,79S.W.2d798,802(Tenn.1935). Thekeytoananalysisunderresjudicatais l  whethertheissuecouldhavebeenlitigatedintheformerlawsuit . Baldwinv.KnoxCountyBd. X  ofEduc. ,No.03A019903CH00110,1999WL893827,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.Oct.15,1999)( no D! perm.app.filed )(emphasisadded). 0"    Dr.Shanklinarguesthatthedoctrineofresjudicatadoesnotapplyinthiscaseashiscurrent $X" proceedingandhis1997proceedinginvolvedifferentcausesofaction.Dr.Shanklins1997case $D # involvedagediscriminationandretaliationinviolationoftheTennesseeHumanRightsAct.His %0!$ currentcaseinvolvesclaimsofbreachofemploymentcontractandunjustenrichmentbyUTMG. &"% AcentralissueinbothcasesisthereductioninDr.Shanklinssalary.Bothofthesecasescitedthis '#& reductioninsalaryasa causeofaction. (#'   Wefindthatthekeytoouranalysisofthiscaseiswhetherthebreachofcontractandunjust |*%) enrichmentclaims couldhavebeenlitigatedintheformerlawsuit. Id. Uponexaminationofthe h+&* record,itisquitecleartothiscourtthatbothoftheseclaimscouldhaveandshouldhavebeen  litigatedinthefirstlawsuit.AsDr.Shanklinfailedtodosothen,heisbarredfrom  doingsonow.  Anyotherfindinginthiscasewouldviolatetheprinciplesofresjudicata.Wemustaffirmthetrial  courtsrulingthatDr.Shanklinsactionsforunjustenrichmentandbreachofcontractarebarredby t thedoctrineofresjudicata. `   Conclusion  8      Basedontheforegoingconclusions,weherebyaffirmtherulingofthetrialcourt.Cost  ` onappealareassessedagainsttheappellant,Dr.DouglasR.Shanklin,andhissurety,forwhich  L  executionmayissueifnecessary.#XXX X. #  8     `     h     ___________________________________      `     h     DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE