Fife Portal Llc, Et Al, Respondent V. Eric L. Kotulan Et Al., Petitioners

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
FIFE PORTAL, LLC, a Washington limited
liability company; FIFE PORTAL 140
OWNERS ASSOCIATION, LLC, a
Washington limited liability company,
No. 53444-4-II
Respondents,
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
v.
ERIC L. KOTULAN and JANE DOE
KOTULAN, husband and wife, and the marital
community comprised thereof; JOSH
KOTULAN and JANE ROE KOTULAN,
husband and wife, and the marital community
comprised thereof; RICH HALL and JANE
DOE HALL, husband and wife, and the marital
community comprised thereof; SEAN GAY
and JANE DOE GAY, husband and wife, and
the marital community comprised thereof;
ROGELIO GOMEZ and JANE DOE GOMEZ,
husband and wife, and the marital community
comprised thereof; BRADLEY WILLIAMS
and JANE DOE WILLIAMS, husband and
wife, and the marital community comprised
thereof; ISAAC BLACKWOOD and JANE
DOE BLACKWOOD, husband and wife, and
the marital community comprised thereof;
GARY TURNER and JANE DOE TURNER,
husband and wife, and the marital community
comprised thereof; and JOHN ROE 1-10 and
JANE ROE 1-10, husbands and wives, and the
marital communities comprised thereof,
Appellants.
MAXA, J. – Fife Portal, LLC and Fife Portal 140 Owners Association, LLC (collectively,
Fife Portal) filed a lawsuit against Eric Kotulan and other employees of Pacific Utility
Filed
Washington State
Court of Appeals
Division Two
August 18, 2020

No. 53444-4-II
2
Contractors, Inc. (collectively, the Employees) to recover for property damage Pacific caused to
Fife Portal while installing underground conduit for CenturyLink, Inc. The Employees appeal
the trial court’s denial of their summary judgment motion, which asserted that res judicata
precluded Fife Portal’s lawsuit. We remand for the trial court to dismiss Fife Portal’s lawsuit
against the Employees.
In a prior lawsuit, Fife Portal sued Pacific and CenturyLink to recover the same damages
sought from the Employees. In a partial summary judgment ruling and an evidentiary ruling at
trial, the trial court determined that Fife Portal could not present evidence regarding certain
damages claims. The court also entered judgment as matter of law in favor of CenturyLink. The
trial court had found Pacific liable as a matter of law on summary judgment, and after trial a jury
awarded Fife Portal damages against Pacific.
The trial court entered a final judgment against Pacific for the amount of the awarded
damages, treble damages, interest, and attorney fees. Fife Portal appealed the trial court’s rulings
regarding the damages evidence and the dismissal of CenturyLink (“Fife Portal I”). At that
point, Pacific went out of business. Because its judgment against Pacific had not been paid, Fife
Portal filed a separate lawsuit against the Employees. The Employees filed a summary judgment
motion, arguing that res judicata and collateral estoppel precluded Fife Portal’s second lawsuit.
The trial court denied the motion and then stayed the action pending resolution of the Fife Portal
I appeal.
However, Pacific later paid the judgment in favor of Fife Portal in full and the trial court
in Fife Portal I entered a satisfaction of judgment. Fife Portal now concedes that it cannot
recover the judgment amount from the Employees.

No. 53444-4-II
3
Fife Portal’s concession is based on the general rule that one liable person’s payment of a
judgment eliminates any other person’s liability for the amount paid because a plaintiff generally
can only have one satisfaction of a judgment. See Marshall v. Estate of Chapman, 31 Wn.2d
137, 145-46, 195 P.2d 656 (1948); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS § 50(2)
(AM. LAW INST. 1982); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 885(3) (AM. LAW INST. 1965). “A
payment by one person liable for a loss reduces pro tanto the amount that the injured person is
entitled to receive from other persons liable for the loss.” RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF
JUDGMENTS § 50(2) cmt. c.
In addition, on August 11, 2020 this court issued an opinion in Fife Portal I affirming the
trial court’s rulings in that case regarding the damages evidence. Fife Portal, LLC v.
CenturyLink, Inc., No. 52415-5-II, slip op. (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 11, 2020) (unpublished),
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2052415-5-II%20Unpublished%20Opinion.pdf.
Fife Portal conceded in its brief and at oral argument that if the damages evidence rulings were
affirmed, its lawsuit against the Employees must be dismissed.
Fife Portal’s concession is based on the general rule that if an injured party sues only the
employer on a respondeat superior theory and the employer prevails in a judgment on the merits,
the doctrine of res judicata precludes filing or maintaining the same claim against the employee.
Ensley v. Pitcher, 152 Wn. App. 891, 902-07, 222 P.3d 99 (2009); see also RESTATEMENT
(SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS § 51(1) (AM. LAW INST. 1982). And a judgment affirmed on appeal
retains its res judicata effect. See Crosby v. County of Spokane, 137 Wn.2d 296, 313, 971 P.2d
32 (1999) (stating that rulings on appeal can defeat res judicata).

No. 53444-4-II
4
We accept Fife Portal’s concessions because Pacific paid the judgment in Fife Portal I in
full and Pacific prevailed on appeal on the two damages evidence issues. Accordingly, we
remand for the trial court to dismiss Fife Portal’s lawsuit against the Employees.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW
2.06.040, it is so ordered.
MAXA, J.
We concur:
LEE, C.J.
SIDDOWAY, J.1
1 The Honorable Laurel Siddoway is a Court of Appeals, Division Three, judge sitting in
Division Two under CAR 21(a).