Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02179/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02179-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Reginald Haywood, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Jeffrey A. Bedatsky, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-05-2179-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants Connie Mayorga and Lincoln Tyson’s motion

for summary judgment. Dkt. #90. Plaintiff has filed responses and Defendants have filed

a reply. Dkt. ##93, 98, 103-04. 

I. Background.

After Plaintiff was terminated from his employment with the United States Postal

Service (“USPS”) he filed for unemployment benefits through the Arizona Department of

Economic Security (“DES”). Defendant Mayorga was the DES deputy assigned to determine

Plaintiff’s eligibility for benefits. Dkt. #91 Ex. 1. After considering the respective positions

of Plaintiff and the USPS regarding Plaintiff’s eligibility for benefits, Defendant Mayorga

determined that Plaintiff was terminated for reasons that disqualified him from receiving

unemployment benefits. Id. Defendant Tyson, the state’s Administrative Law Judge who

heard Plaintiff’s appeal, set aside Mayorga’s denial of benefits. Id. at Ex. 2. During the

hearing, Defendant Tyson was recorded stating to a third party that Plaintiff is “as nutty as

a fruitcake. He’s totally nuts, totally nuts.” Dkt. #93 Ex. A.

Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 155 Filed 02/21/07 Page 1 of 5
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 -

Plaintiff filed a civil complaint against Mayorga and Tyson in Maricopa County

Superior Court on June 4, 2004, alleging “libel and slander,” “fraud, oppression, malice,”

“tortious invasion of privacy,” and “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Dkt. #91

Ex. 3. Superior Court Judge Michael O’Melia granted the State Defendants’ motion to

dismiss and entered a judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice on November

2, 2004. Dkt. #91 Ex. 6. 

On July 7, 2005, Plaintiff filed the present civil complaint against Defendants

Mayorga and Tyson and numerous others. Dkt. #1. The only claims pled against Mayorga

and Tyson are “intentional infliction of emotional harm” and “libel and slander.” Id. at ¶ 31.

II. Summary Judgment Standard.

Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable

to the nonmoving party, “show[s] that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and

that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). “Only disputes over facts that might

affect the outcome of the suit . . . will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment.”

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The disputed evidence must be

“such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. at 248.

III. Analysis.

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

Defendants Mayorga and Tyson contend that the Court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction because the complaint pleads no claims arising under federal law and because

there is a lack of diversity between the parties. Dkt. #90 at 7. 

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over cases involving federal questions

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff has sued Defendants Mayorga and Tyson solely

under state law. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff has, however, sued other defendants under various federal

statutes, including Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and the Family

Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). Id. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over those

claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 155 Filed 02/21/07 Page 2 of 5
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 -

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, Congress has authorized the court to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims against Defendants Mayorga and

Tyson. Section 1367 provides:

 [T]he district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other

claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original

jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article

III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall

include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties. 

28 U.S.C. § 1367.

It is well settled in the Ninth Circuit that a district court has power to exercise

supplemental subject matter jurisdiction over a party when the federal and state law claims

“derive from a common nucleus of operative facts.” Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit Co., 301 F.3d

1163, 1174 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting United Mine Workers, 383 U.S. at 725); see also Raygor

v. Regents of the Univ. of Minn., 534 U.S. 533, 539 (2002). The decision to exercise that

jurisdiction remains discretionary with the district court. See City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll.

of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 172-73 (1997). When deciding whether to exercise supplemental

jurisdiction the district court should consider and weigh the values of judicial economy,

convenience, fairness, and comity. See Id.

The state law claims asserted against Defendants Mayorga and Tyson, like the Title

VII, ADA, and FMLA claims asserted against others, arise from the circumstances

surrounding Plaintiff’s termination from the USPS and the subsequent denial of

unemployment benefits by DES. The claims “derive from a common nucleus of operative

facts.” See Trs. of the Constr. Indus. & Laborers Health and Welfare Trust v. Desert Valley

Landscape & Main., Inc., 333 F.3d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that supplemental

jurisdiction is appropriate when the issues in one claim “would have been part of the trial”

on another claim). Taking into consideration the relevant factors, the Court concludes that

it should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 155 Filed 02/21/07 Page 3 of 5
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 -

B. Res Judicata

Defendants Mayorga and Tyson assert res judicata as an affirmative defense to

Plaintiff’s action. Defendants contend that Plaintiff had his day in court against these

defendants and, because a final judgment was entered dismissing his claims with prejudice,

Plaintiff is precluded from reasserting them in federal court. Dkt. #90 at 4. 

State law governs the application of res judicata to a state court judgment. Ayers v.

City of Richmond, 895 F.2d 1267, 1270 (9th Cir. 1990); Marrese v. Am. Acad. of

Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373, 380 (1985). Additionally, the party seeking to assert

res judicata bears the burden of proving that it applies. See State Comp. Fund v. Yellow Cab

Co. of Phoenix, 3 P.3d 1040, 1044 ¶ 14 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). Thus, Defendants have the

burden of showing that all of the elements of res judicata under Arizona law are present to

bind Plaintiff to the previous judgment of the state court.

In Arizona, res judicata will preclude a claim when a former judgment on the merits

was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction and the matter now in issue between the

same parties was, or might have been, determined in the former action. See Hall v. Lalli, 977

P.2d 776, 779 (Ariz. 1999). A valid final judgment is conclusive as to every issue decided

and every issue raised by record that could have been decided. See Heinig v. Hudman, 865

P.2d 110, 115 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994); accord Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 966 F.2d

1318, 1320 (9th Cir. 1992) (stating that “res judicata bars 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”).

Defendants Mayorga and Tyson have proven all elements of res judicata, thus binding

Plaintiff to the previous judgment of the state court. First, Defendants in this case were

named as defendants in Plaintiff’s state court action. Dkt. #91 Ex. 3. Second, Plaintiff

asserted identical claims in both suits. Plaintiff alleged in the state court case that Defendants

“libeled, slandered, and defamed Plaintiff” and that they committed both “tortious invasion

of privacy” and “intentional infliction of emotional distress.” Id. In this case, Plaintiff

alleges that Defendants “deliberately inflicted emotional harm” and “libeled and slandered”

Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 155 Filed 02/21/07 Page 4 of 5
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

1

Given this ruling, the Court need not address Defendant’s arguments that Plaintiff

failed to meet the notice of claims requirement, that the statute of limitations had run, and

that Defendants were entitled to absolute immunity by acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.

- 5 -

him. Dkt. #1 at ¶ 31. Third, the state court reached a final judgment on the merits regarding

those claims when it granted the State Defendant’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.

Defendants have met their burden of showing that all the elements of res judicata

under Arizona law are present. See Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708,

715 (9th Cir. 2001) (affirming a district court ruling that res judicata precluded a party from

asserting in district court the same claims that were raised or could have been raised in a prior

state action). The Court accordingly will grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants

Mayorga and Tyson.1

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendants Connie Mayorga and Lincoln Tyson’s motion for summary judgment

(Dkt. #90) is granted.

2. Plaintiff’s motion to supplement his responses (Dkt. #106) is granted. 

DATED this 20th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-02179-DGC Document 155 Filed 02/21/07 Page 5 of 5