Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00541/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00541-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal - Employment Discrimination

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMOS LEE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AMERICAN AIRLINES, a private

corporation, GERARD ARPEY; MARK

KOSTRZEWA; ROBERT COHEN; NANCY

TAYLOR; RICHARD WOODS; GERARD

SCHIPPERS; and Does 1 Through 20,

Inclusive,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07-0541 SC

ORDER GRANTING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION

FOR JUDGMENT ON THE

PLEADINGS

I. INTRODUCTION

On January 25, 2007, Defendants American Airlines et al.

("Defendants") removed a case filed by Plaintiff Amos Lee

("Plaintiff") to this Court from state court. See Dkt No. 1. 

Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion for Judgment on

the Pleadings. See Dkt Nos. 14, 15. Plaintiff opposed the Motion

and Defendants filed a Reply. See Dkt Nos. 19, 21.

For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS

Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff's

complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

II. BACKGROUND

This case is related to one filed by Plaintiff and removed to

this Court by Defendants in 2005: Amos Lee v. American Airlines,

05-CV-2709 SC ("Lee I"). On January 24, 2006, the Court approved

the parties' joint stipulation dismissing the individual

Case 3:07-cv-00541-SC Document 22 Filed 07/31/07 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 2

defendants. See Lee I, Dkt No. 16. In June of 2006, American

Airlines filed a motion for summary judgment. See Lee I, Dkt No.

36. Plaintiff never filed an opposition. After some further

activity, the parties stipulated to a dismissal of the case with

prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. See Lee I, Dkt No. 55. The Court approved the

dismissal on August 4, 2006. See Lee I, Dkt No. 56.

Four months later, Plaintiff filed another complaint against

Defendants in state court; Defendants then removed the case to

this Court: Amos Lee v. American Airlines, 07-CV-0541 SC ("Lee

II"). In May, Plaintiff replaced the attorney who had filed both

cases with a new attorney. See Lee II, Dkt No. 13. Afterwards,

Defendants filed their Motions, asserting that Plaintiff's present

complaint is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

 "A judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when,

taking all the allegations in the pleadings are true, the moving

party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Nelson v. City

of Irvine, 143 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 1998).

"The doctrine of res judicata provides that a final judgment

on the merits bars further claims by parties or their privies

based on the same cause of action, and is central to the purpose

for which civil courts have been established, the conclusive

resolution of disputes within their jurisdiction." Headwaters

Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 399 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2005)

(internal citations and quotations omitted). The elements

Case 3:07-cv-00541-SC Document 22 Filed 07/31/07 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

necessary to establish res judicata are: (1) an identity of

claims, (2) a final judgment on the merits, and (3) privity

between the parties. Id. (internal citations omitted).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Identity of Claims

To prevail in its motion, American Airlines must first show

an identity of claims between Lee I and Lee II. "The central

criterion in determining whether there is an identity of claims

between the first and second adjudications is whether the two

suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts." 

Frank v. United Airlines, Inc., 216 F.3d 845, 851 (9th Cir. 2000)

(internal quotations omitted). Specifically, courts consider (1)

whether the rights or interests established in the prior judgment

would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second

action; (2) whether substantially the same evidence is presented

in the two actions; (3) whether the two suits involve infringement

of the same right; and (4) whether the two suits arise out of the

same transactional nucleus of facts. The last of these criteria

is the most important. See Headwaters, 399 F.3d at 1052.

In support of their motion, Defendants provided copies of the

complaints from Lee I and Lee II as well as a red-line comparison

of the two. See Request for Judicial Notice ("RJN"), Lee II, Dkt

No. 16. A comparison of the complaints reveals that they are

essentially identical except for some stylistic changes and the

addition of text in the first and third causes of action

indicating potential retaliation claims. See RJN, Ex. C. The

Case 3:07-cv-00541-SC Document 22 Filed 07/31/07 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 4

additional facts and retaliation claims in Lee II, however, arise

from the same transactional nucleus of facts alleged in Lee I. 

Although Plaintiff asserts that these retaliation claims are new,

they are "all grounds for recovery which could have been asserted,

whether they were or not, in a prior suit between the same parties

. . . on the same cause of action." Gregory v. Widnall, 153 F.3d

1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998) (emphasis added). Plaintiff had

already asserted claims for retaliation in Lee I and his new

allegations do not constitute new causes of action. Furthermore,

the new material in Lee II concerns events which took place before

the stipulated dismissal, thus the new allegations could have been

raised in Lee I. The complaints in Lee I and Lee II assert the

same causes of action, assert facts arising from the same

transactional nucleus, concern the same evidence, and concern the

same rights. Once Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed his prior

complaint with prejudice, he lost the opportunity to raise

identical claims in a subsequent lawsuit. 

B. Final Judgment on the Merits

Defendants must also show that the stipulated dismissal with

prejudice qualifies as a judgment on the merits. In Lee I, the

Court approved the parties' stipulated dismissal under Rule

41(a)(1)(ii) on August 4, 2006. See Lee I, Dkt No. 56; Lee II,

Dkt No. 56, Ex. 2. The stipulation specified that the dismissal

was with prejudice. Id. This language indicates a final

adjudication on the merits. See Semtek Int'l Inc. v. Lockheed

Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497, 505 (2001); Hells Canyon Preserv.

Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 403 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005)

Case 3:07-cv-00541-SC Document 22 Filed 07/31/07 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

("Final judgment on the merits is synonymous with dismissal with

prejudice.") (internal quotations omitted). The Court finds that

the stipulated dismissal with prejudice in Lee I was a final

adjudication on the merits of all of Plaintiff's claims.

C. Privity between Parties

The parties from Lee I and Lee II must be in privity for the

Court to apply res judicata. The Plaintiff, Amos Lee, is the same

in both cases. Plaintiff initially sued the exact same defendants

in each case: American Airlines and assorted employees. In Lee

I, Plaintiff dismissed the individual defendants prior to

dismissing the complaint with prejudice. See Lee I, Dkt No. 16. 

Even though the individual defendants were dismissed prior to

dismissal of the complaint, res judicata still operates to bar

Plaintiff's claims against them because they are privies of the

company. Plaintiff could have (and did) bring claims against them

in the prior proceeding and cannot do so again. See Henry v.

Farmer City State Bank, 808 F.2d 1288, 1235 n.6 (7th Cir. 1986). 

Defendants have established all the elements necessary to bar

Plaintiff's claims pursuant to res judicata.

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed herein, the Court GRANTS

Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Plaintiff's

complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2007 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-00541-SC Document 22 Filed 07/31/07 Page 5 of 5