[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 14-14380

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:14-cv-80378-BSS

ROBERT DESISTO, 

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 versus

CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, 

 Defendant-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(July 10, 2015)

Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 14-14380 Date Filed: 07/10/2015 Page: 1 of 6 
2

Robert DeSisto appeals from the magistrate judge’s1 dismissal with 

prejudice of his complaint under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 

U.S.C. § 791 et seq. (§ 504), alleging disability discrimination against his former 

employer, the City of Delray Beach, based on his constructive discharge following 

imposition of a new job requirement. DeSisto previously prevailed in a Florida 

Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. § 760.01 (FCRA), action in Florida state court, alleging 

disability discrimination against Delray Beach based on the same underlying 

constructive discharge (the Prior Action).

DeSisto asserts the magistrate judge erred in granting Delray Beach’s 

motion to dismiss on res judicata grounds, because: (1) pursuant to Andujar v. 

National Property Casualty Underwriters, Inc., 659 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 4th DCA

1995), the current cause of action is not identical to the Prior Action; (2) Delray 

Beach has appealed the Prior Action; (3) Florida res judicata law only applies to 

state court losers; (4) pursuant to Andujar, a federal court was not a court of 

competent jurisdiction for the FCRA claim; (5) the magistrate judge did not have 

access to the entire record of the Prior Action when applying res judicata

principles and inappropriately addressed res judicata in a motion to dismiss rather 

than a motion for summary judgment; and (6) his claim was not barred by the 

doctrine against splitting causes of action.

 1 Both parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.

Case: 14-14380 Date Filed: 07/10/2015 Page: 2 of 6 
3

“[W]hen a federal court exercises federal question jurisdiction and is asked 

to give res judicata effect to a state court judgment, it must apply the res judicata

principles of the law of the state whose decision is set up as a bar to further 

litigation.” Amey, Inc. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc., 758 F.2d 1486, 1509 (11th 

Cir. 1985) (quotations omitted). “Under Florida law, res judicata applies where 

there is: (1) identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; 

(3) identity of the persons and parties to the action; (4) identity of the quality [or 

capacity] of the persons for or against whom the claim is made; and (5) the original 

claim was disposed on the merits.” Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 713 F.3d 

1066, 1074 (11th Cir. 2013) (alteration in original). The parties do not dispute 

elements one, three, and four of the test. The Prior Action and Instant Action had 

the same prayers for relief, and the two cases involved the same parties in their 

same capacities. 

DeSisto challenges elements two and five: “identity of the causes of actions” 

and the requirement the original claim be disposed on the merits. First, the federal 

and state claims involved the same causes of action. His prior FCRA claim and 

current § 504 claim rise out of the same essential facts, even though they may not 

have exactly the same elements. See Saboff v. St. John’s River Water Mgmt Dist., 

200 F.3d 1356, 1360 (11th Cir. 2000) (“Florida law defines identity of causes of 

action as causes sharing similarity of facts essential to both actions.”). In addition, 

Case: 14-14380 Date Filed: 07/10/2015 Page: 3 of 6 
4

his reliance on Andujar2 for this element is misplaced, because Andujar analyzed 

the different causes of action under federal res judicata law rather than Florida 

law. See Andujar, 659 So. 2d at 1216. Furthermore, Andujar acknowledged the 

same facts would sustain both causes of action, which is the test for identity under 

Florida res judicata law. See Lozman, 713 F.3d at 1074-75; Andujar, 659 So. 2d at 

1216. Second, the Prior Action was resolved on the merits, as the jury reached a 

verdict on the sole claim and the state court entered a judgment. See Lozman, 713 

F.3d at 1074. Delray Beach’s appeal does not affect the fact the state court decided 

the Prior Action on the merits, because the decision is a bar so long as it remains 

unreversed. See Fla. Dep’t of Trans. v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101, 105 (Fla. 2001)

(“[A] judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, on the merits, is a 

bar to any future suit between the same parties or their privies upon the same cause 

of action, so long as it remains unreversed.” (quotations omitted)).

 

2

 In Andujar, Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed whether an employer’s 

victory in a federal employment discrimination action barred the employee’s state law claim for 

discrimination. 659 So. 2d at 1215. Applying federal res judicata law, the court held the federal 

gender discrimination cause of action, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a), was different than the Florida state civil rights cause of action and the 

federal court was not a court of competent jurisdiction for a state civil rights claim because a 

federal court only had “pendent jurisdiction” over state law claims. Id. at 1216-18. The court 

recognized “the same evidence would probably sustain both of the statutory causes of action,” 

but did not understand the causes of action to be identical merely because the same evidence 

would establish each one. Id. at 1216. The court concluded claims must arise under the same 

sovereign’s laws in order to be identical for res judicata purposes. Id.

Case: 14-14380 Date Filed: 07/10/2015 Page: 4 of 6 
5

In addition, DeSisto points to no authority to support his argument that 

Florida res judicata law only applies to state court judgment losers. Florida res 

judicata law does not distinguish between winners and losers, and is simply 

concerned with finality and an end to litigation. See Lozman, 713 F.3d at 1074; 

Juliano, 801 So. 2d at 105. 

DeSisto’s argument that Andujar holds a federal court is not one of 

competent jurisdiction over state law claims also fails, because DeSisto filed the 

Prior Action in Florida state court, which did have jurisdiction over a § 504 claim. 

See Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455, 458-60 (1990) (explaining state courts have the

inherent authority to adjudicate claims arising under the laws of the United States, 

and presumptively have jurisdiction over federal questions unless Congress divests 

them of that jurisdiction).

DeSisto is incorrect in characterizing the magistrate judge’s discussion of 

the doctrine against splitting causes as an alternative ground for dismissal. The 

doctrine against splitting causes is not a separate ground for dismissing a complaint 

but rather an aspect of res judicata. See Froman v. Kirland, 753 So. 2d 114, 116 

(Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (stating the rule against splitting causes of action is “an aspect 

of the doctrine of res judicata”). Nevertheless, this rule applies to DeSisto’s § 504 

claim, because the Florida state court had jurisdiction over a potential § 504 claim 

when he filed his FCRA claim. See Tafflin, 493 U.S. at 458-60; Aquatherm Indus. 

Case: 14-14380 Date Filed: 07/10/2015 Page: 5 of 6 
6

v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 84 F.3d 1388, 1392 (11th Cir. 1996) (“It is wellestablished that the general rule against splitting causes of action does not apply 

when suit is brought in a court that does not have jurisdiction over all of a 

plaintiff’s claims.”).

In addition, the magistrate judge appropriately considered the doctrine of res 

judicata as advanced in Delray Beach’s motion to dismiss, because the court 

appropriately took judicial notice of the court documents in DeSisto’s prior state 

action. See Lozman, 713 F.3d at 1076 n.9 (noting a district court may take judicial 

notice of court documents from a prior state action on a motion to dismiss). 

Looking at these outside documents did not convert the motion to a motion for 

summary judgment. Although DeSisto argues the record is incomplete, he does 

not identify any particular missing documents that are relevant or would change 

the analysis.

Accordingly, the magistrate judge did not err in dismissing the complaint as 

barred by res judicata. See Griswold v. Cnty. of Hillsborough, 598 F.3d 1289, 

1292 (11th Cir. 2010) (reviewing de novo the district court’s application of res 

judicata). Thus, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 14-14380 Date Filed: 07/10/2015 Page: 6 of 6