A fte r ex am in in g t h e b rie fs a n d rec or d , w e h av e c on c lu d ed th at ora l arg u m en t is * u n n ec es sa ry . T h u s, th e a p p ea ls a re su b m itt ed on th e b rie fs a n d th e re c or d . SeeF ED . R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2) . 

# United States Court of App eals F or the Se ven th C ir cu it Ch i cago ,I l l i nois 6 0604 Subm i tte d A ugust 1 4, 20 08 * Deci ded A ugust 2 5, 20 08

B efo re R IC H A R D D . C U D A H Y , Cir cu i tJudg e D A N IE L A . M A N IO N , Cir cu i tJudg e JO H N D A N IE L T IN D E R, Cir cu i tJudg e

N os. 06 - 3626 , 06 - 3630 , 06 - 3640 , 06 - 3641 , 06- 3642 , 07 - 1076 & 07 - 2364 RO DI CA WA I VI O, P laint if f-A ppell ant, v. BOAR D O F T RUS TE ES OF T HE UNI V E R S I T Y O F I L L I NO I S AT C H IC A G O , et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees . A pp eal s fro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct C ou rtfor th e N or th er n D ist ric t o f Ill in ois , Eas te r n Di vi si o n. N os. 04 C 354 5, 04 C 626 3, 05 C 231 4, 05 C 231 6 & 06 C 193 8 C h ar les R . N or gle , Sr., Judg e . NONP RE C E DE NT I AL DI S PO S I T I ON To b e ci te d o nl y i n a cc o r dan ce wi th Fe d . R. A p p . P. 32 .1N os. 06 - 3626 , 06 - 3630 , 06 - 3640 , 06 - 3641 , 06 - 3642 , 07 - 1076 , 07- 2364 & 07 - 3695 Page 2

N o. 07 - 3695 RO DI CA WA I VI O, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. BOAR D O F T RUS TE ES OF T HE UNI V E R S I T Y O F I L L I NO I S AT C H IC A G O , et a l., D efend a nts-A pp ellees. A pp ealfro m the U ni ted S tat es Dist ri ct C ou rtfor th e N or th er n D ist ric t o f Ill in ois , Eas te r n Di vi si o n. N o. 06 C 718 9 V irg in ia M . K en d all, Judg e .

O R D E R These co nsol i dated appeal s a ri se fro m deci si ons by the Unive rs i ty ofI l l i noi s a t Ch i cago to di sm i ss Rodica W ai vi o fro m a Ph. D. pro gr am and ter m i nate her em plo ym ent a s a g ra du ate as si sta nt. W ai vi o, wh o i s Rom ani an bybi rth, i ni ti al l y fi l ed fi ve sui ts i n sta te or federa lco urt cl ai m i ng, pri nci pal l y, thatthe unive rs i ty and i ts em plo yee s di sm i sse d her on the b asi s o fherge nd er, nati onalo ri gi n, and al l ege d m entali l l ness. But s he al so nam ed as a defe nd ant Educati onalTest i ng S er vi ce, wh i ch, acc or ding to W ai vi o, f ai l ed to acc om m odate her disabi l i ty w hen adm i ni ste ring an exam she w as re quir ed to ta ke to continue her studie s. And i n two ofherl aw sui ts W ai vi o i ncl ud ed cl ai m s a gainst the l aw fi rm s that had appe ar ed o n b eh al fo fthe uni ve r si tyde fen dan ts a nd ETS . T he de fen dan ts r emov ed th e sta te- cour t a cti ons to federa lco urt, and eve ntual l y a l lfi ve sui ts w er e co nsol i dated. J ud ge N orgle l ater d ism issed the con soli d ated action for abus e of p rocess , ow ing to W aivio’ s c o nti nu e d d e l a y i nga nd thr e a t e ningc o nd uc ti n the c o ur s e o fthe l i t i g a t i o n. Un de t e r r e d, W ai vi o fi l ed th r ee mot i o ns f o rr ec o ns i der at i o n, a l lo fwhi chthe di st r i ctc o ur t r ej ec te d. T he dism i ssa lo fthe conso l i dated acti on pre ci pit ate d seve n ofthes e a pp eal s, nos . 06 - 3626 , 06 - 3630 , 06 - 3640 , 06 - 3641 , 06 - 3642 , 07 - 1076 , and 07- 2364, wh i ch f oro ur purpose s ca n be evaluated as o ne. M eanw hi l e, aftershe fi l ed thi s ba tch o fappeal s, W ai vi o bro ught ano ther sui t a gainst m any o fthe sam e uni ver si ty defe nd ants and thei r l aw fi rm . Thi s new acti on d u p lica te s a n u m b er of th e c laim s fro m th e c on so lid at ed ac tio n, an d Ju d ge K en d all di smi ss ed th e su i t o n the de fen dan ts ’ mot i o n a s ba r r ed bythe do ct r i ne o fc l ai m pr ec l us i o n. W ai vi o’ s a pp ealfro m thatdi sm i ssa li s be f or e us as case no. 07 - 3695 . W e turn fi rs t t o the di sm i ssa lo fthe conso l i dated acti on. Di str i ct c ourt s hav e i nhe r en t au th o r i tyt o s an ct i o n l i ti g an ts f o rabus e o fpr o ce ss , up to a nd inc l udi ngdi smi ss i ng th e la w su it. C ham be rs v. NA SC O , Inc. , 501 U .S. 32 , 44-4 5 (1 99 1); M ontano v. City of C hi. ,N os. 06 - 3626 , 06 - 3630 , 06 - 3640 , 06 - 3641 , 06 - 3642 , 07 - 1076 , 07- 2364 & 07 - 3695 Page 3

N o. 06 - 2148 , 20 08 W L 28148 28, at* 4 ( 7th Ci r. J uly23 , 20 08) . W e r evi ew the choi ce o f sa n c tio n for a b u se of d isc re tio n, an d th e u n d er lyin g fa c tu al fin d in gs for c lea r er ro r. M ont ano , 2 00 8 W L 2 81 48 28 , a t * 4. T he s ev er i tyo fa s an ct i o n s ho ul d b e pr o po r ti o na te t o the gr av ity of th e o ffen se . All e n v . Chi . Tr ans i tAut h. , 3 17F . 3d 69 6, 7 03 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) . And al though di sm i ssa las a sancti on “ shoul d be e m plo yed spar i ngl y a nd o nl y when there i s a re c or d of d ela y, co n tu m ac iou s c on d u c t, or o th er, l es s d ra st ic s an c tio n s p ro ve u n av ailin g,” D ot s on v. Br avo , 3 21 F . 3d 66 3, 6 67( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) , we ha ve uphe l d di smi ss al s wher e th e pla i nti ffenga ged i n conduct such a s fi l i ng m oti ons desi gned to har ass , m aking i m proper th re at s, an d d ela yin g litig at ion u n n ec es sa rily. Se eLa di e n v . As t r ac han , 12 8 F . 3d 1051 , 10 57 (7t h C ir. 19 97 ); P yram id Energy, Ltd. v. Heyl & Pa tt erson, Inc. , 869 F.2d 105 8, 1062 ( 7th Cir. 19 89 ); Gli ckv. Gut b r od, 782 F.2d 75 4, 75 7 (7 th C ir. 19 86 ). W ai vi o ’ s ac ts j us ti fy i ngdi smi ss ala r e l eg i o n. S he b eg anthi s l i ti g at i o n b y fi l i ng d u p lica tiv e, blu n d erb u ss co m p lain ts , no n e o f w h ich sa tis fies th e “ sh or t a n d p lain sta tem ent” re quir em ent o fFe deralRule o fCi vi lPro cedure 8. M any o fthe cl ai m s in thos e com pla i nts a re patent l y fri vol ous. Afte r that W ai vi o fi l ed a pl etho ra o fm oti ons, m any o f th em i nd ecip he rable and a good n um ber focus ed on trivi al m atters. Th e d istri ct cou rt note d i n i ts or der o fdi sm i ssa lthatthe docketf orthe conso l i dated acti on had ov er40 0 en tr ies , in co n tr as t w ith th e 5 0 t o 7 5 e n tr ies th at w ou ld h av e b ee n ty p ica l for a c om p ar ab le ca se . Wai vi o the n c o m po unde d the r es ul tingde l ay s byt ak i ngt enmonths t o r es po nd t o the d efend an ts’ m otions to d ism iss. Beyon d m erely delaying th e li tigation, th ou gh, W aivio’ s conduct vee re d i nto the t rul y abusi ve. S he thr eat ened to ki l lo ne o pp osing l aw yer, tr i ed to physi cal l y r est ra i n hi m , and verbal l y har ass ed hi m i n cour thouse hal l w ays . Her su bmi ss i o ns t o the c o ur t al so c o nt ain a l l eg at i o ns o fa s ex ua lr el at i o ns hi p b etwee n two o fthe l awy er s f o rthe de fen se ; a l l eg at i o ns whi ch, i n s pi te o fthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s admoni sh m en t th atthe pe r so na ll i ve s o fthe o ppo singc o uns elwer e “o fno c o nc ern t o the c o ur t, l eta l o ne W ai vi o, ” s he co nti nues to m ake befor e us. The k i ckercam e when W ai vi o tw i ce fi l ed d ocu m en ts w ith th e cou rt accu sing tw o of th e law yers of having “kill ed the p lai nt iff’ s baby. ” Give n W ai vi o’ s hi sto ryo fdel ay, heri natte nti on t o the rule s o fthe cour t, and her th r ea te ni nga nd ho st i l e co nduc t, J udg e N o r g l e di d no t ab us e hi s di sc r et i o n in di smi ss i ng the c onso l i dated acti on f orabuse o fpro cess . W ai vi o’ s be havi orwent beyo nd the bounds of whata di st r i ctc o ur t co ul d b e ex pec te d t o i ndul g e. Mor eo ve r, W ai vi o ’ s po st j udg m en t m oti ons sai d nothi ng tha t would have co m pel l ed J ud ge N or gl e t o al terhi s v i ew that di smi ss alwi thpr ej udi ce was the a ppr o pr i at e sa nc ti o n. That r eso l ves al lbut the l asto fW ai vi o’ s a pp eal s. Afte r her conso l i dated acti on was d ism issed , W aivio again su ed several ofthe u niversity d efend an ts an d the law firm re p re se n tin g t h em . A s b efo re sh e c laim s t h at sh e w as d ism iss ed from h er ac ad em ic pr o g r am an d fi r ed as a g r adua te a ss i st an t be ca us e o fhe rg en der, na ti o na lo r i g i n, a ndN os. 06 - 3626 , 06 - 3630 , 06 - 3640 , 06 - 3641 , 06 - 3642 , 07 - 1076 , 07- 2364 & 07 - 3695 Page 4

al l ege d disabi l i ty. W ai vi o’ s co m pla i nt, however, al so cl ai m s that the uni ver si ty disc ri m i nated ag ai nst he r anew byf ai l i ng to rehirehe ra s a g r adua te a ss i st an t afte rfi r i ng her, and by provi ding negat i ve em plo ym ent r efer ences. J ud ge K endal ldi sm i sse d thi s l ast co m pl ainta s ba r r ed bythe do ct r i ne o fc l ai m pr ec l us i o n. U nd erfedera ll aw , a pri orl aw sui t that r esul ted i n a fi nalj ud gm ent o n the m er i ts b ar s a se c on d su it ra isin g t h e s am e c laim s a ga in st th e s am e p ar tie s o r th eir p riv ies . Colev. B d. of Trs. of U niv. of Ill . , 497F.3d 77 0, 77 2-7 3 (7 th C ir. 20 07 ); H ighway J Ci t ize ns Gr oup v. U . S. D ep’ t . of Tr ans p. , 4 56 F . 3d 73 4, 741 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) . Cl ai m s ar e th e sa m e i fthe y a r i se fr o m the “‘ sam e co re o fo perat i ve f acts . ’ ” H ighway J . Ci t ize ns , 45 6 F . 3d at 741 ( quoti ng Brzos t owsk iv. Laidlaw W

asteSys. , Inc. , 49 F. 3d 337, 33 8- 39 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95) ) . A dism i ssa lwith pr ej ud i ce, ev en a d ism iss al im p os ed as a sa n c tio n, i s a fina l j u d gm en t o n th e m er its . S e eL e o n v . IDX Sy stem s C o rp , 464 F.3d 951 , 957, 962 (9th Cir. 2006); s e eal s o El m orev. He nde rs on , 22 7 F . 3d 10 09 , 101 1 (7 th C ir. 20 00 ). St i l l, notal lo fthe cl ai m s in W ai vi o’ s fi nall aw sui t a ri se fro m the sam e e vents und er l yi ng herco nsol i dated acti on. Cl ai m pre cl usi on does noti m m unize a defe nd ant fro m fur th erb ad ac ts mer ely b ec au se the pl aint i ffha s fi l ed a pr ev i o us s ui t; c l ai m s th ata cc r ue aft er th e p rior su it w as filed are n otp re c lu d ed . See Sm ith v. P o tter, 51 3 F . 3d 781, 78 3 ( 7th C ir. 20 08 ); Rawe v . Li b e r ty M ut . Fi r eIns . Co. , 4 62 F . 3d 52 1, 5 30 ( 6th Ci r . 2 00 6) . A wro ng ful d i s c h a r g e i s s e p a r a t e d fr o m p o s t - d i s c h a r g e e v e n t s b y “ t i me a n d fu n c t i o n, ” a n d c l a i ms ab ou t p os t-d isc h ar ge ev en ts d o n otn ee d to be br ou gh t w ith w ro n gfu l-d isc h ar ge cla im s. SeePerkins v. Bd . of Trs . of U niv. of Ill . , 116 F.3d 23 5, 23 6-2 37(7t h C ir. 19 97 ). T h u s, cla im pr ec l us i o n do es no t ba rW ai vi o fr o m pur su i nghe ra l l eg at i o n tha t di sc r i m i na to r y a ni m us m o ti va te d b o ththe de ci si o n n o t to r eh i r e he ra nd the a l l eg edly ne g at i ve e m pl o y m en t re fer ences. W hetherther e m i ght a l so be o thercl ai m s that a re notpre cl ud ed i s a questi on that w i l lr equi re furtherdevel opm ent o n re m and, and i n re sol vi ng tha t i ssue the di str i ct c ou rtw ill be fre e t o in sis t o n co m p lian c e w ith R u le 8 of th e F ed er al R u les of C ivil P ro c ed u re . W e e x p re ss n o op in ion as to th e m er its of an y of W aiv io’s cla im s; w e h old on ly th at h er n ew es t la w su it s h ou ld n oth av e b ee n d im iss ed in it s e n tir et y on th e b as is of c laim p re c lu sio n . A c c or d in gly , th e jud gm en t in ap p ea l no . 07-3 69 5 is V A C A T E D , an d th at ca se is RE M A N DE D fo r furtherpro ceedi ngs. In eac h ofW ai vi o’ s o therappeal s, the j ud gm ent o f the di s t r i c tc o ur ti s AF F I RMED.