2004 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 2-18-2004 

# B e am v . B aue r P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 03-1874

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" Be a m v . B aue r " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1001. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2004/1001* Honor able Thomas N
. O’N eill , Jr. , Senior District Judgefor the United St ates

District Court for the E astern District of Pennsyl vania, sitting by des ignati on. NOT PRE CEDENT IAL THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT

___________ Nos. 03-1874, 03-2194

___________ BE VE RL Y BE AM, Ap pellan t,

v. MARC BA UER; GLENN W. ZEHNER; CAPITAL AREA INT ER M ED IAT E U NIT ; SC OT T D OW NE Y; R OG ER M OR RIS ON ;

DAVID L. GRAYBILL; MICHAEL SWEGER

___________ ON APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT FO R T HE MID DL E D ISTR ICT O F PE NN SY LV AN IA

(D.C. Civi l No. 02-cv- 01797) Distri ct Judge: The Honorable Sy lvia H. Rambo

___________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit LAR 34.1(a)

January30, 2004
BE FO RE : NY GA AR D a nd F UE NT ES , Circu it Judges , a nd O’NEI LL, * Distri ct Judge
. (Fil ed February18, 2004)2 ___________ OPINI ON OF THE COURT

___________ NY GA AR D, Circu it Judge
.

Be ver ly Bea m a ppe als th e D istrict Co urt’s dism issal of h er co mp laint
. Beam also contends the Dist rict Court erred by i mposing sanctions agai nst her under Fed eral R ule of Civil P roced ure 1 1(c) (“ Ru le 11” ). As th is app eal is m eritless, w e w ill aff irm. I.

Because the fac ts ar e known to the parties , and we writeonlyfor them, our factual synopsis is brief. A ppellee, the C apital Area In termediate U nit (“CA IU”), contrac ted with Beam to provide tr ansport ation f or disabled publi c school chi ldren. For fifte en ye ars, B eam dro ve a sch ool bus on v ario us ro utes , inclu din g on e fo r de af c hild ren . As an independent

contrac tor, Beam was subject t o changing ass ignments, but she averaged appr oximatel y 450 mil es per y ear between 1995 and 2000. Beam allege s that CAIU drastical lycut her mi leage after 2000 in retal iati on for complai nts she l odged and a lawsuit she fil ed regardi ng new polici es she cl aimed disa dvantaged smal l contr actors like her self
. Beam initi ally sued CAIU’s staff i n their indivi dual capaci ties . The District Co urt d ism issed und er R ule 1 2(b )(6), a nd w e af firm ed. Beam v. Downey , 54 Fed. Appx.3

113 (3d Cir. 2002). Whil e the fi rst c ase was pending before us, Beam fil ed another lawsuit . The new suit

was substantially i dentic al, but added CAIU and independent contrac tors who competed wit h Beam as defendants and include d a few new claims. The Distri ct Court di smissed t he bulk of the second case on res jud icata ground s. The C ourt evaluated the new ret aliation and e qual protecti on clai ms on the meri ts, but concl uded that t hey too should be di smissed. Therefore, Beam’s second case , like the fi rst, was dism issed in its entirety. U pon mo tion by A ppelle es, the D istrict Co urt imp osed $4,75 5 in Rule 11 sanctions agai nst Beam for unre asonablyand vexati ouslymulti ply ing li tigat ion by filing th e seco nd law suit. II.

Bea m ap pe al s the Dis tric t C our t’ s d is mi ss al of

he r s ec ondla wsu it , and w e
exe rcise plen ary rev iew
. Nami v. Fauver , 82 F .3d 6 3, 65 (3d Cir . 199 6). Beam also appeals the Rule 11 sanctions. We review a District Court ’s deci sion t o impose sanctions for an a bus e of disc retio n. Lazorko v. Pa. Hosp. , 237 F.3d 242, 248 (3d Cir. 200 0).

On appeal, Beam argues that t he District Court

erred by(1) appl yi ng res judicat a to her due process, equal protecti on, civil conspir acy, contr act, and First Amendment claims; (2) di smissi ng her new reta liat ion and equalprotect

ion claims; and (3 ) i mpos in g sanctio ns a gai nst her . As eac h i ss ue l ack s me ri t, we wi llaff irm. The Distri ct Court appropri atel y appl ied res jud icata to the due process, equa l protec tion, an d civil c onsp iracy claim s. The dism issal of the first s uit und er Ru le4

12(b)(6) was on the merit s, the clai ms in the s econd suit mirror those i n the fi rst, and CAIU, though not named in t he firs t action, was i n privi tywith it s indi vidual s taff
me mb ers, w ho w ere th e or igin al de fen dan ts. See, e. g., Huck v. Dawson , 106 F.3d 45, 48 (3d C ir. 1997 ) (notin g that res judi cata will bar a clai m if (1) t

he earl ier j udgment is fi nal and on the meri ts; (2) the clai ms asserted are the same as thos e asserted in t he earl ier actio n; an d (3 ) the par ties a re th e sa me as, o r in p rivity w ith, th ose in th e ea rlier a ction ). It w as als o p ro pe r f or th e D ist ric t C ou rt to ap pl y res judi cata to Beam’s contract and First Am end me nt cla ims , as th ey sho uld hav e be en a sser ted in her first c om plain t. See Edmundson v. Borough of Kenn ett Square , 4 F.3d 186, 189 (3d Cir. 1993) (noting that res judicat a applie s both t o clai ms previously deci ded and those t he parti es might have , but did not, assert in an ea rlier action).

Th e D ist ric t C ou rt d id no t ap pl y res judi cata to Beam’s new ret aliation and equa l protec tion cla ims. B eam allege s, how ever, th at the D istrict Co urt erred wh en it dismis sed thoseclai ms on the meri ts. As to the equalprotect ion claim, we conclude that the D istrict Co urt c orre ctly de term ined that B eam wa s no t a m em ber of a pro tecte d cla ss. Therefore, we evaluate he r equal protection claim under thehighly deferential “ rati onal bas is” st and ard
. Tillm an v. L eban on C oun ty Co rr. Fa cility , 221 F.3d 410, 433 (3d Cir. 2000). Here, CAIU’s policywas rati onally related to a l egiti mate purpose of providi ng whe el ch ai r- ac ce ss ib le tr an sp or tati on and B ea m co ul d no t p ro vi de su ch tr an sp or tati on. As even Beam admits, wheelchair accessible vans are more expensi ve to buyand maintai n,1. Fed era l Ru l e o f Ap pe l l ate Pr oc ed ure 38 pro vi de s a rem ed y o f

da ma ge s f

or a par ty w ho is r equir ed to d efend a legitim ate jud gm ent fr om a fr ivolou s app eal. W e w ill leave i t to Appell ees to determ ine whether they wish to petit ion for such an award. 5 so it w as re aso nab le fo r CA IU to co mp ens ate th e ow ner s of tho se v ans at a h igh er ra te. We also conclude, as did t he District Court , that Beam’s ret aliation cl aim suffer s the fat al flaw of all eging ret aliatoryconduct before the event that s upposedlytri ggered the retal iator y moti ve. Furt

hermore, Beam has faile d to show even a te ntati ve causal nexus between her fi ling t

he origi nal la wsuit and CAIU’s reduct ion in her

mileage. The D istrict Court’s decision to im pose san ctions on B eam w as proper. In her h aste to f ile a sec ond laws uit, Be am d isrega rded the the n-pe ndin g app eal be fore th is Co urt. Be am w ould have been we ll-advise d to aw ait our o pinion , wh ich ultim ately affirmed t

he resul t in t

he firs t case. Our result would have put Beam on noti ce that her claim s lacke d m erit, apart f rom any con cerns abou t res jud icata . Under the circumst ances, t

he District Court ’s deci sion t o grant appe llee s’ moti on for sanctions was not an a bus e of disc retio n. F ed. R . Civ . P. 1 1(c ). III. For th e fo re goi ng r eas ons , we wil l a ffirm. 1