Full text
Escalante v. Rodgers
THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Court of Appeals
Mario Escalante, Appellant,
v.
David L. Rodgers and Janice W. Rodgers, d/b/a Whitehall Express Mart, Respondents.
Appellate Case No. 2018-000289
Appeal From Anderson County R. Lawton McIntosh, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2020-UP-021 Submitted January 1, 2020 – Filed January 29, 2020
AFFIRMED
Donald Loren Smith, of Attorney Office of Donald Smith, of Anderson, for Appellant.
Phillip E. Reeves and Nicholas Andrew Farr, both of Gallivan, White & Boyd, PA, of Greenville, for Respondents.
PER CURIAM: Mario Escalante appeals the circuit court's order granting summary judgment in favor of David L. Rodgers and Janice W. Rodgers. On appeal, Escalante argues the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment
because res judicata does not apply to his claims. Because the state and federal actions involved the same parties, arose from the same occurrence, and the federal court granted summary judgment in the federal action, we hold res judicata barred Escalante's state action. See S.C. Pub. Interest Found. v. Greenville Cty., 401 S.C. 377, 385, 737 S.E.2d 502, 506 (2013) ("Res judicata bars subsequent actions by the same parties when the claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence that was the subject of a prior action between those parties." (quoting Judy v. Judy, 393 S.C. 160, 172, 712 S.E.2d 408, 414 (2011))). Additionally, res judicata barred Escalante's negligence claim because he should have brought the claim in the federal action. See id. ("Under the doctrine of res judicata, a litigant is barred from raising any issues which were adjudicated in the former suit and any issues which might have been raised in the former suit." (quoting Judy, at 172, 712 S.E.2d at 414)). Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in granting summary judgment.
AFFIRMED. 1
THOMAS, GEATHERS, and HEWITT, JJ., concur.
1 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.