N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KR ISTY HENDER SON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. JOHN B ONAVENTUR

A; LOU TOOM IN; LAS VEGAS TOW NSHIP C ONSTAB L E’ S OFFIC E; C LAR K C OUNTY, De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-15944 D.C . No. 2:13-c v-01921-R C J-VC F
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da R o be rt C l ive Jone s, Se nior Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d April 14, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : WALLAC E, SC HR OEDER , a nd KOZINSKI, C i rc uit Judge s. Kristy He n de rson a

ppe a ls from

the judgm e nt e nte re d a ga inst he r and ra ise s issue s with two of the

distric t c o urt’ s orde rs. First, she c ha lle nge s the distric t
c ourt’ s orde r dism issing four of her c la im s . Se c ond, she c o nte nds tha t the c ourt 

# FIL ED MAY13 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.e rre d in gra

nting sum m ary judgm e n t in fa

vor of Appe lle e s on he r Title VII c la im s. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a nd we re ve rse and re m and. He nde rson doe s not c ha l le nge the distric t c ourt’ s dism i ssa l of C la rk C ounty
a s a de fe nda

n t. Ac c ordingly , we do not a ddre ss tha t ruling. Any

re fe re nc e we m ake to “ Appe l le e s” in this disposition e xc lude s C la

rk C ounty . W e first a ddre ss our jurisdic tion to he ar this c a se . Appe lle e s initia lly argue d that we la c ke d jurisdic tion be c a use He nde rson’ s notic e of a ppe a l wa s not file d within thirty

da y s a fte r the distric t c ourt’ s Ja nua ry 10, 2014 dism

i ssa l orde r. B ut, a

t
ora l argum e nt, c ounse l wise ly withdre w this a

rgum e nt, sinc e R

ule 54(b) of the Fe de ra l R ule s of C ivil Proc e dure provide s tha t unle ss the distric t c ourt dire c ts e ntry of a fina l judgm e nt, a

ny orde r a djudic ating “ fe we r tha n a ll the c la i m s . . . doe s not
e nd the a c tion a s to a

ny of the c la im s or pa

rtie s .” B e c a

u se the distric t

c o urt did not dire c t e ntry

of a fina l judgm e n t

a fte r issuing its Ja

nua ry 10, 2014 dism

issa l orde r, that orde r be c am e a

ppe a la b le only a fte r the distric t c ourt issue d its judgme n t disposing of all the c l a im s. Ac c ordingly , we hav e jurisdic tion to re vie w a ll the issue s be fore us. He nde rson c o n te nds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in dismissing c la im s four (bre a c h of c ontra c t), five (viola tions of Ne va da

sta te la w a nd the Unite d State s a

nd Ne va da C onstitutions), a

nd six (bre a c h of the im

plie d c ove na

nt of good fa ith a

nd 2fa ir de a ling) of he r c o m pla i nt unde r the an ti-c la im -splitting doc trine . W e re vie w the d istric t c o urt’ s a

pplic a t ion of this doc trine for an a buse of disc re tion. A dams v
. C al. De p’t of He alth Se r

v s . , 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th C ir. 2007), ov e rrule d on othe r grounds by

Tay lor v . Sturge ll , 553 U.S. 880, 904 (2008). The anti-c la im -splitting doc trine pre ve nts a

pa rty from m a inta i ning “ two se pa

rate a c tions involving the
sam e subje c t m a tte r a t the sa m e tim e in the sa

m e c ourt a

nd a ga inst thesa

m e de fe nda n t.” Id. at 688 (quoting W alton v . Eaton C

orp. , 563 F.2d 66, 70 (3d C ir. 1977) (e n ba

nc )). To de te rm ine whe the r an a c tion is ba rre d unde r the doc t

rine , “ the
a ppropria te inquiry is whe the r, a ssum ing tha t the first suit we re a lre a dy fina l, the
se c o nd suit c ould be pre c lude d pursua nt to c la im

pre c lusion.” Id. at 689 (quoting Hartse l Springs Ranch of C olo., Inc . v . Blue

gre e n C orp. , 296 F.3d 982, 987 n.1 (10th C ir. 2002)). The distric t c ourt a

b use d its disc re tion in a

pply ing the anti-c la im -splitting doc trine he re . Adams holds tha t the doc t rine a pplie s whe re a

pa rty m a inta ins two
a c tions “ in the sa

m e c ourt.” Id. a t 688 (quoting W alton , 563 F.2d a

t 70). He re , He nde rson file d one c om

pla int in sta

te c ourt a nd a n othe r in fe de ra l c ourt. B e c a use she file d he r c o m

pla i nts in sep a

ra te c ourts, theprope r inquiry for the distric t c ourt
wa s whe the r to a

bsta in from

the c a se . The Supre m e C ourt ha s e xpla ine d tha t fe de ra l c o urts should a s se ss the “ a ppropria te ne s s of dismissa l in thee ve nt of a n 3e xe rc ise of c o nc urre nt jurisdic tion” by a pply i ng a non-e xha ustive list of fa c tors. C olo. Riv e r W

ate r C onse rv ation Dist. v. Unite d State s , 424 U.S. 800, 818 (1976). The se fa c tors inc l ude : (1) “ the inc onve nie n c e of the fe de ra l forum ,” (2) “ the de sira bility of avoiding pie c e m e a l litiga tion,” an d (3) “ the orde r in whic h jurisdic tion wa s obta i ne d by the c onc urre nt forum s .” Id. (c ita tions omitte d). W e the re fore re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s dism i ssa l of c la im s four, five , a nd six, a nd
re m and for furthe r c onside ra tion of the se c l a im s in light of He n de rson’ s volunta

ry dism issa l of he r stat e -c ourt a c tion. The distric t c ourt a l so dismisse d c la im se v e n (wrongful disc h arge ) of the
c om pla i nt, c onc luding tha

t He nde rson wa s a

n at-will e m

p loy e e and ha d

not shown he r e m ploy e r te rm inate d he r in viola tion of Ne va da public polic y . W e re ve rse and
re m and on this c la im be c a use the distric t

c ourt did not prope

rly a pply the Ne va da Supre m e C ourt’ s de c i sion in Allum v . Valle y Bank of N e v . , 970 P.2d 1062 (Ne v. 1998). The re , the Ne va da Supre m e C ourt he ld tha

t “ [a ] c l a im

for tortious discha

rge should beava ila

b l e to a n e m ploy e e who wa s te rm i nate d for re fusing to e nga ge in
c onduc t tha

t he , in good fa ith, re a sona bly be lie v e d to be ille g a l.” Id. at 1068. B ut inste a d of a sse ssing whe the r He nde rson ha d a good fa ith be lie f that pa

rtic ipating in the re a lity -TV show would be ille ga l, the distric t c ourt “ e stim ate d tha t the Ne va da Supre m e C ourt would like ly only re c o gniz e te rm i nation of a n e m ploy e e for re fusa l 4to pa

rtic ipate in se rious fe l onie s a s suffic ie nt to invoke an e xc e ption to the

at-will
e m ploy m e nt doc trine
. ” This sta

te d sta nda rd c onflic ts with Allum . Ac c ordingly , we re ve rse an d re m and for the d i stric t c ourt to a pply Allum prope rly
. W e now turn to the distric t c ourt’ s sum m a ry judgm e nt. The distric t c ourt gran te d Appe lle e s sum

m ary judgm e nt on He nde rson’ s Title VII c la im s (c l a im s one through thre e of he r c om

pla int), c onc luding tha

t He nde rson wa s judic i a lly
e stoppe d from

pursuing those

c la im s be c a

u se she fa ile d to list them in a se pa ra te ba nkruptc y filing. W e re vie wthe distric t c ourt’ s a pplic ation of judic ia l e stoppe l for
an a b use of disc re tion. Milton H. Gre e neArc hiv e s, Inc . v . Marilyn Monroe LLC , 692 F.3d 983, 992 (9th C ir. 2012). Unde r the doc trine of judic ia l e stoppe l, “ w he re a pa rty a ssum e s a

c e rta in position in a

le ga l proc e e ding, a

nd suc c e e ds in m a inta ining tha t position, he

m ay not the re a fte r, sim

ply be c a use his inte re sts ha

ve c ha nge d , a ssum e a

c ontra ry position, e spe c ia lly

if it be to the pre

judic e of the pa

rty who ha s a c quie sc e d in the position form e rly

ta ke n by him .” Dav is v . W

ak e le e , 156 U.S. 680, 689 (1895). The doc trine ’ s “ purpose is to prote c t the inte grity of the judic ia l proc e s s by prohibiting pa rtie s from de libe ra te l y

c h anging positions a

c c ording to the

e x ige nc ie s of the
m om e nt.” N

e w Hampshire

v . Maine , 532 U.S. 742, 750–51 (2001) (inte rna l quota t ion m arks a

n d c ita tions omitte d). Se ve ra l fa c tors “ inform the de c ision

5whe the r to a pply the doc trine in a

pa rtic ula r c a se ,” id. at 750, inc luding: (1) whe the r the pa

rty ’ s la te r position is c le arly

inc onsiste n t with its e arlie r one , (2) whe the r the pa

rty wa s suc c e ssful in pe rsua ding thec ourt of its e arlie r position, a nd (3) whe the r the opposing pa rty would suffe r any pre

judic e . Id. at 750–51. W e hold tha

t the distric t c ourt a

buse d its disc re t ion in a

p ply ing judic ia l
e stoppe l to He nde rson’ s Title VII c la im s. The distric t c ourt pre m i se d its
a pplic a tion of judic ia l e stoppe l on the notion tha t He nde rson took a

n inc onsiste nt position by

fa iling to disc l ose he r c la im s in he r pe nding ba nkruptc y a c tion. B ut a

n e xam ination of there c ord shows tha t this pre m ise is fa

ulty
. He nde rson file d for ba nkruptc y on August 3, 2012, whic h wa s a bout thre e we e ks be fore she file d a
c ha rge of disc rim i nation with the EEOC
. On the sa

m e da y she file d he r c ha rge of disc rim ination, sheam e nde d he r bankruptc y sc he dule s to disc lose he r pote ntia l
c la im s a ga inst he r e m

ploy e r. The distric t

c ourt a ppa re ntly m isse d this a

m e ndm e nt sinc e it m ista

k e nly obse rve d tha

t “ [He nde rson] doe s not a ppe ar to ha

ve e ve r disc lose d to the ba nkruptc y c ourt the e xiste n c e of he r c ontinge n t c l a im s.” This sta te m e nt is plainly e rrone ous a nd thus wem

ust re ve rse the distric t c o urt’ s sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of Appe lle e s on He nde rson’ s Title VII c l a im s, a nd we
re m and for furthe r c onside ra tion.

6W e re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm inations tha t Toom in c annot be sue d unde r Title VII and tha

t B ona ve ntura c an only be sue d in his offic i a l c a pa c ity . The distric t c o urt e rre d by

c onside ring the se argum e nts a fte r Appe lle e s ra ise d the m in the i r re ply

brie f and without giving He nde rson a n opportunity

to re spond. Se e Prov e nz v . Mille r , 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th C ir. 1996). On re m and, the distric t
c ourt sha ll pe rm i t He nde rson to a ddre ss the se argum e nts. He nde rson’ s m otion for judic ia l notic e is gra nte d. RE V E RSE D AND RE M ANDE D.

7He nde rson v . Bonav e ntura , No. 14-15944

W ALLAC E , J., c onc urring in pa rt a n d disse nting in pa

rt I c onc ur in the pa

ne l’ s disposition exc e pt for the holding re ve rsing the distric t c o urt’ s de t e rm inations tha t De puty C onsta ble Lou Toomin a

nd C onsta ble John B ona

ve n t ura c annot be he ld lia

ble unde r Title VII. While the disposition
c orre c tly holds tha t the distric t c ourt’ s fa i lure to give He nde rson a n opportunity

to
a ddre s s the se issue s is re ve rsible e rror unde r Prov e nz v . Mille r , 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th C ir. 1996), inste a d of re ve rsing a nd re m anding for thedistric t c ourt to
a llow He nde rson to a ddre ss the issue s, I would follow Prov e nz ’ s le a d by
c onside ring He nde rson’ s propose d surre ply in de c iding whe the r the distric t c ourt
e rre d in its de te rm inations. Id. He nde rson a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d

in holding tha

t Toom in “ is not
an ‘ e m ploy e r’ who c an be sue d unde r Title VII a t a ll.” While the c ourt wa s c orre c t insofa r a s Toom in c annot be he ld lia ble in his individua

l c a pa c ity , M ille r v . Max w e ll’s Int’l Inc
. , 991 F.2d 583, 587 (9th C ir. 1993), it nonethe le ss e rre d by holding tha

t he c annot be he ld lia

ble “ at a ll” be c a

u se an e m ploy e e c an c re ate lia bility for an e m ploy e r unde r the the ory

of re sponde at supe rior. Id. at 588 (“ No
e m ploy e r will a llow supe rvisory or othe r pe rsonne l to viola te Title VII whe n

the
e m ploy e r is lia

ble for the Title VII viola tion” ). Thus, I would vac ate and re m and the d istric t c o urt’ s ruling a s to Toomin be c a use the distric t

c o urt’ s bla

nke t holding 

# FIL ED MAY13 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALSfa ils to re c ogniz e tha t Toom in’ s a c tions m ay

c re at e lia bility for the C onsta

ble ’ s Offic e . He nde rson a l so a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d in holding tha t B ona ve ntura c o uld be h e ld lia

ble only in his offic i a l c a

pa c ity . I would a ffirm

this portion of thec ourt’ s ruling sinc e an e m ploy e e c annot be he l d lia

ble unde r Title VII in his individua

l c a pa c ity
. Id. at 587.

2