2006 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-15-2006 

# Okp or v . Rutge rs Uni

v P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 05-5301

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2006 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Ok por v . R ut g e r s U niv " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 450. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/4501 NO T PRECEDEN TI AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 05- 5301

________________ M I CHAEL OKP OR, A ppel l ant

vs. RU TGER S, THE STATE UN I VER SI TY O F NEW J ERSEY

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

Forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . C . C i v. N o. 05- cv- 00129) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e Fr eda L. W ol fs on

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

Sept ember14, 2006 Be f o r e : FI SHER, ALD I SERT a n d W EI S, CI RCU I T J UD GES

( Fi l ed Sept ember15, 2006)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________ P E R C U R I A M.

M ich a e l O k p o r a p p e a ls th e D istric t C o u rt’s e n tryo f su m m a ryju d g m e n t in f a v o ro f Ru t g e r s , T h e S t a t e Un i v e r s i tyo f Ne w J e r s e y . F o rth e r e a s o n s th a tf o l l o w, we wi l l a f f i r m.2 In Ja n u a ryo f

2 0 0 2 , O k p o r w a s d ism iss e d f ro m R u tg e rs u n d e rg ra d u a te S c h o o l o f

B u s in e s s , a f

te r h is g ra d e -p o in t a v e ra g e f e ll b e lo w th e re q u ir e d m in im u m o f 2 .0 . I n J anuaryof 2004, O kporfi l ed s ui tagai ns tR ut ger s i n the C hance ryD i vi s i on of the S u p e rio r C o u rt o f

N e w Je rse y , alle g in g th a t b yd e n y in g h is a p p lica tio n s to re tro a c tiv e ly w ith d ra w f

ro m c e rta in c o u rse s w ith o u t ac a d e m ic p e n a ltyf o llo w in g h is in v o lv e m e n t in m u lti p le c a r a c c id e n ts a n d , u lti m a tely , d ism iss in g h im , R u tg e rs v io late d h is rig h t to p ro c e d u ra l d u e p ro c e ss u n d e r 4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . H e f iled a n a m e n d e d c o m p lain t in M a rc h o f 2 0 0 4 , ad d in g a c o u n t o f n e g lig e n c e , an d late r so u g h t to a m e n d h is c o m p lain t a s econd t i m e i n or dert o add cl ai m s forbr eac h of contr act , br eac h of the i m pl i ed cove nant o f g o o d f a i th a n d f

a i rd e a l i n g , a n d v i o l a t i o n o f th e Ne w J e r s e yCo n s u me rF r a u d Ac t . On D ec em b er 1 7 , 2 0 0 4 , the C ivil L aw D ivisi o n o f th e S u p erior C o u rto f N ew Jerse yh ea rd or al ar gum enton O kpor ’ s m ot i on t o amend hi s compl ai ntand R ut ger s ’ m ot i on for su m m a ryju d g m e n t. T h e c o u rt issu e d a ru lin g f ro m th e b e n c h , d e n y in g O k p o r’s m o tio n to amend and gr ant i ng R ut ger s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm entbas ed on i t s concl us i on t hat O kporhad fa i l ed t o fi l e the r equi r ed 90- daynot i ce unde rthe TortC l ai m s A ctand thathe h a d n o t f ile d h is c iv il r ig h ts a c tio n w ith in th e a p p lic a b le tw o y e a r s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s . O kpors oughtr econs i der at i on of the Super i orC our t ’ s deci s i on and then appe al ed t o the N e w J e rs e yS u p e ri o r C o u rt A p p e lla te D iv is io n .

O n J anuary10, 2005, w hi l e O kpor ’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on w as p en d ing in S u p erior C o u rt , h e f il ed the in stan t acti o n in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt3

f o r th e D istric t o f

N e w Je rse y . In th is a c tio n , O k p o r a lleg e d th a t R u tg e rs v io late d h is r i ghtt o pr ocedur al due pr oces s under42 U . S. C . § 1983, comm i t t ed uns peci fi ed vi ol at i ons of 42 U . S. C . §§ 1981, 1985 & 1986, engage d i n br eac h of contr act , and vi ol at ed the covena ntof good fa i th and fa i rdeal i ng. R ut ger s m oved t o di s m i s s the ac t i on or , i n the al t ernat i ve, forentr yof s um m aryj udgm enti n i t s favor , ar gui ng thatthes e cl ai m s had a lre a d yb e e n o r sh o u ld h a v e b e e n ra ise d in sta te c o u rt, an d th a t th e F u ll F a ith a n d C re d it C l aus e of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on and the doctr i nes of i s s ue and c l ai m pr ecl us i on b a r O k p o r f

ro m lit ig a tin g th e se c laim s in f e d e ra l co u rt. T h e D istri ct C o u rtco n v erted R u tgers’ m o ti o n into o n e f o r sum m ary j udgm entand gr ant ed i t . T he C our thel d thatbeca us e O kpor ’ s § 1983 cl ai m s had al r eady b ee n d ism issed w ith p rejud ice in state c o u rt , an d b ec au se h e p rese n ted n o fa cts i n su p p o rt of hi s cl ai m s thatw er e notal r eadyaddr es s ed i n the s t at e courtpr ocee di ng, he w as barr ed fr om l i t i gat i ng hi s § 1983 cl ai m s i n fede r al courtbythe Ful l Fai th and C r edi tC l aus e, N ew J er s ey ’ s ent i r e contr over s ydoctr i ne, and the pr i nci pl es of r es j udi cat a. T he C our tfur ther h eld th at O k p o r fa il ed to state a c au se o f a cti o n p u rsua n t t o 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 1 , w h ich b ars ra c ial d isc rim in a tio n in th e m a k in g a n d e n f o rc e m e n t o f

c o n tra c ts a n d p ro p e rty tra n sa c tio n s, a n d p ro v id e d n o e v id e n c e to su p p o rt h is c laim s th a t R u tg e rs v io late d h is r i ght s pur s uantt o 42 U . S. C . §§ 1985 & 1986, w hi ch pr ot ecti ndi vi dual s fr om depr i vat i ons of ri gh t s com m i t t ed b yei ther pri vate orst at e act ors as partof a c on spi racy . B ecause O kpor ’ s § 1983 act i on had al r eadybeen a dj udi cat ed i n s t at e court , and bec aus e O kporhad4

otherw i se fai l ed to st at e a fed eral cl ai m , the D i stri ctC ou rtdecli ned t o ex erci se supp l em ental j uri sdi ct i on ov er O kp or’ s st at e l aw cl ai m s.

O kporthen fi l ed a mot i on forr econs i der at i on, s ubm i t t i ng l ett er ce rt ifi ca ti o n s fro m tw o ind ividu als w h o claim ed to h av e o v erh ea rd ra ciall yd iscri m inato ry comm ent s m ade a boutO kporbycert ai n agent s orempl oy ees of R ut ger s . T he D i s tr i ct C our thel d thatnei therof the l ett ercert i fi cat i ons cons t i tut ed “ne w l ydi s cover ed evi dence ” beca us e both l ett er s expl i ci t l ys t at ed thatO kporw as m ade a w ar e of the al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n the ce r t i fi cat i ons i n 2001. T hus , the fa ct s cont ai ned w i thi n them coul d have been pr es ent ed t o the s t at e courtw hen O kpor ’ s or i gi nal act i on w as fi l ed and, ther efor e, theyw oul d notj us t i fyr econs i der at i on of the C our t ’ s A ugus t23, 2005 or der . O kport hen appea l ed. We h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rth i s a p p e a l p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . We r evi ew a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entde novo. Penns y l vani a C oal A s s ’ n v. B ab b itt, 6 3 F . 3 d 2 3 1 , 2 3 5 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 5 ). S u m m aryjud g m en t i s p rop er o n lyif i t app ea rs “thatther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatthe movi ng partyi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ” Fed. R . C i v. P. 56( c) ; C arr as ca v. Pom er oy , 313 F. 3d 8 2 8 , 8 3 2 -33 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ).

U nderthe pr i nci pl es of r es j udi cat a, “a f i nal j udgm enton the mer i t s of an a c tio n p re c lu d e s th e p a rties o r th e ir p riv ies f ro m re lit ig a tin g iss u e s th a t w e re o r c o u ld hav e been rai sed i n thatact i on . ” A l l en v . M cC urry , 44 9 U . S . 90 , 96 (1980 ). In the case5

w h e re a f

e d e ra l ac tio n f

o llo w s a sta te a c tio n , “C o n g re ss h a s s p e c if ica llyre q u ire d a ll fede r al court s t o gi ve pr ecl us i ve ef fec tt o s t at e- courtj udgm ent s w heneve rthe court s of th e S tate f

ro m w h ich th e ju d g m e n ts e m e rg e d w o u ld d o so .” S e e id . (citin g th e F u ll F a ith and C r edi tA ct , 28 U . S. C . § 1738) . T hus , i f N ew J er s eys t at e court s w oul d gi ve p re c lu siv e e f

f e c t to th e S u p e rio r C o u rt’s 2 0 0 4 d e c isio n , w e m u st d o so a s w e ll. N e w Je rse yf

o llo w s th e “ e n tire c o n tro v e rsy do c trin e ,” a s c o d if ied in R u le 4: 30A of the R ul es G overni ng C i vi l Pr act i ce i n the Super i orC our t , T ax C our tand S u rro g a te’ s C o u rts. A s e x p lain e d b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt o f N e w Je rse y , the d o c trin e is b a se d o n th e p rin c ip le th a t “th e a d ju d ica tio n o f

a leg a l co n tro v e rsy sh o u ld o c c u r in o n ly one court ; acc or di ngl y , al l part i es i nvol ved i n a l i t i gat i on s houl d atthe veryl eas tpr es ent i n thatpr ocee di ng al l of thei rcl ai m s and def ens es thatar e r el at ed t o the under l y i ng contr over s y . ” D i T r ol i o v. A nt i l es , 662 A . 2d 494, 502 ( N . J . 1995) ( quot i ng C ogdel l v. H os pi t al C tr . , 560 A . 2d 1169 ( N . J . 1989) ) . Succes s i ve cl ai m s ar e dee m ed t o cons t i tut e a si ng l e con trovers yfor pu rposes of t he en t i re cont rovers ydo ct ri ne w hen the clai m s ar i se f ro m “ re la te d f

a c ts o r t h e s a m e tr a n s a c tio n o r s e ri e s o f tr a n s a c tio n s .” Id . I n t he pr es entcas e ther e ca n be no doubtthata s i ngl e contr over s yi s at i s s ue. O kporei therr ai s ed orcoul d have r ai s ed al l of the cl ai m s cont ai ned i n hi s fede r al com plai nt and am end m ents theret o in hi s st at e cou rtact i on . A l l of these cl ai m s ar i se f ro m th e sa m e se t o f

f a c ts – th e d e n ial b yR u tg e rs o f h is a p p lica tio n s to re tro a c tiv e ly w ith d ra w f

ro m c e rta in c o u rse s w ith o u t ac a d e m ic p e n a ltyf o llo w in g h is in v o lv e m e n t inA ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on forthe appoi nt m entof couns el i s deni ed. 1 6 m ul t i pl e ca racc i dent s , and hi s di s m i s s al fr om R ut ger s i n J anuaryof 2002. O kpordoes notal l ege a nyfac t s i n hi s fede r al compl ai ntw hi ch w er e notw i thi n hi s know l edge a tt he t i m e he i ni t i at ed hi s s t at e courtact i on. A ccor di ngl y , as O kporw oul d be barr ed fr om l i t i gat i ng orr el i t i gat i ng hi s §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, br eac h of contr act , and cove nant of good fa i th and fa i rdeal i ng cl ai m s i n s t at e court , he i s l i kew i s e barr ed bythe pr i nci pl es o f re s ju d ic a ta a n d b yth e F u ll F a ith & C re d it A c t f ro m litig a tin g th e m in f e d e ra l c o u rt . W e th e re f

o re c o n c lu d e th a t th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rlye n ter e d su m m a ryju d g m e n t in favorof R ut ger s and deni ed O kpor ’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on.

I n hi s appel l at e br i efs , O kporar gues forthe fi r s tt i m e thatthe D i s tr i ctJ udge sh o u ld h av e re cu sed h erse lf fro m this acti o n g iven h er c lose ti es w ith R u tgers. In su p p o rt o f th is co n tention , O k p o r cit es Ju d g e W o lfso n ’s hiri n g o f ju d ici al i n terns f rom R u tgers S c h o o l o f

L a w , o f w h ich sh e is a n a lu m n u s, a n d h e r h u sb a n d ’s e m p lo ym e n t b yth e S tate A t t orneyG ener al ’ s O ffi ce, w hi ch, l i ke R ut ger s , i s a governm entent i ty . 28 U . S. C . § 455 re q u ire s a f

e d e ra l ju d g e to re c u se h e rse lf “ in a n yp ro c e e d in g in w h ich [ h e r] im p a rtiality m i ghtr eas onabl ybe ques t i oned. ” The ci r cumst ance s ci t ed byO kporw oul d notcaus e “a r eas onabl e man know i ng al l the ci r cumst ance s . . . [t o] harbordoubt s conce rni ng the ju d g e ’s im p a rt ia lity.” U n ite d S ta te s v . D a lf o n s o , 7 0 7 F .2 d 7 5 7 , 7 6 0 (3 d C ir . 1 9 8 3 ). A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatJ udge W ol fs on di d noterri n fai l i ng t o r ecus e her s el f.

F o rth e r e a s o n s s t a t e d h e r e i n , we wi l l a f f i r m. 1