McGilvray v. Perkins, etc., [Ms. SC-2023-0966, June 21, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024). The Court (Mitchell, J.; Parker, C.J., and Wise, Bryan, Stewart, and Cook, JJ., concur; Shaw, Sellers, and Mendheim, JJ., concur in the result) affirms the Montgomery Circuit Court’s summary judgment dismissing the second of two actions David McGilvray filed in an effort to obtain retiree health insurance benefits.
Following his termination by the Alabama Board of Medical Examiners (“the Medical Board”) for sending a sexually explicit email to his coworkers, McGilvray sued the Medical Board’s executive director and the CEO of the Local Government Health Insurance Board in their official capacities. The circuit court determined that McGilvray’s claims were governed by the Administrative Procedure Act § 41-22-1 et seq., Ala Code 1975, and were time-barred. Ms. *5.
McGilvray then filed a second action against the Medical Board defendants in their official and individual capacities seeking the same injunctive relief (retiree health insurance benefits). He also asserted a claim for breach of contract damages and injunctive relief on his own behalf and purportedly on behalf of the State.
In affirming dismissal of the official capacity claims for breach of contract damages, the Court reiterates that “§ 14’s grant of State immunity strips courts of jurisdiction over any claim that seeks to ‘take away any property of the State, or fasten a lien on it, or interfere with disposition of funds in the treasury, or compel the State, indirectly, by controlling its officers or employees, to perform any contract or to pay any debt.’ Wallace v. Malone, 279 Ala. 93, 98, 182 So. 2d 360, 363 (1964).” Ms. *8. However, the Court rejects the defendants’ contention that the claims for injunctive relief claims were also barred by sovereign immunity.
However, the Court affirms dismissal of all McGilvray’s claims based on res judicata which requires “‘(1) a prior judgment on the merits, (2) rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) with substantial identity of the parties, and (4) with the same cause of action presented in both actions.’ Equity Res. Mgmt., Inc. v. Vinson, 723 So. 2d 634, 636 (Ala. 1998).” Ms. *10. The Court reiterates “the doctrine of res judicata applies not only to the exact legal theories advanced in the prior case, but to all legal theories and claims arising out of the same nucleus of operative facts.” Ms. *15, internal quotation marks omitted.