A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det er m i ned * unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det er m i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; nevert hel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed undert he t er m s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e23,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT P E T E R MAM BO ,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v. LAR RY VEH AR ; RA LEY' S OF NEW M E X I C O , I N C . , a for ei gn corpor at i on,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. N o. 05- 2356 ( D. C. No . CI V- 0 5 - 4 0 8 - L H)

(D . N .M .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HENR Y , B RI S CO E , and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es.

Pl ai nt i ff Pet erM ambo appeal s fr om or der s of the di s t r i ctcour tgr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm entt o defe ndant s L arr yV eharand R al ey ’ s of N ew M exi co, I nc. ( R al ey ’ s ) and deny i ng hi s pos t -j udgm entm ot i ons . E xer ci s i ng ourj ur i s di ct i on u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , we a ffi r m.- 2- I . Backg r ound O n O c to b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 2 , p lain tiff su e d R a ley’s, h is fo rm e r e m p lo y e r, in N ew M exi co s t at e courtas s er t i ng one countof r ace / nat i onal or i gi n di s cr i m i nat i on undert he N ew M exi co H um an R i ght s A ct . T he part i es have de nom i nat ed that cas e Mam bo I. R al ey ’ s m oved fors um m aryj udgm enti n Mam bo I, and i t s m ot i on w as g ran ted o n Ju n e 1 7 , 2 0 0 4 . P lai n ti ff ap p ea led th e o rde r gra n ti n g su m m ary j udgm entt o t he N ew M exi co Supr eme C our t , and w hi l e thatappea l w as pendi ng, on D ece m ber30, 2004, he fi l ed the i ns t antcas e, al s o i n s t at e court . Si nce the par t i es have de nom i nat ed thi s cas e Ma m b o II, w e w i l l cont i nue w i t h t hat t e r m i n o l o g y. I n Ma m b o II, pl ai nt i ff a s s er t s a s i ngl e countof di s cr i m i nat i on under 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 1 . In a d d it ion to R aley ’s, h e n am ed L arryV eh ar, a R aley ’s empl oy ee a nd hi s for m erm anage r . T he fa ctual al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n t he Ma m b o II

compl ai ntar e i dent i cal i n al l m at er i al r es pect s t o t hos e s etfor t h i n t he Ma m b o I compl ai nt . O n A pr i l 11, 2005, t he defendant s r emoved Ma m b o II to fe d e ra l d istric t co u rt a n d filed a sim u ltan e o u s m o tio n to d ism iss , alte rn a tiv e ly sty led a m o tio n fo r su m m a ryju d g m e n t. D e fe n d a n ts a rg u e d th a t p lain tiff ’s c laim i n Ma m b o II

w as for ecl os ed byt he s t at e court ’ s di s pos i t i on of Mam bo I pur s uant t o t he doctr i nes of col l at er al es t oppel and r es j udi cat a. T he di s t r i ctcour tt r eat ed defe ndant s ’ r eques tas a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm entand gr ant ed the mot i on on A ugus t18, 2005. Pl ai nt i ff f i l ed a M ot i on t o A m end O r deron A ugus t31, 2005,- 3-

and a M ot i on t o R eques tR el i ef Fr om O r deron Sept ember 1, 2005, bot h of w hi ch w er e deni ed. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. Si nce pl ai nt i ff f

i l ed hi s N ot i ce of

A ppeal i n t hi s act i on, t he N ew M exi co Supr eme C our ti s s ued i t s deci s i on i n Ma m b o I. T he courtaff i r m ed the tr i al cour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm entt o R al ey ’ s , hol di ng t hatpl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m t hat he w as s ubj ectt o di s cr i m i nat or yr emar ks abouthi s r ace and nat i onal or i gi n w as “uns uppor t ed byanyr ecor d evi dence , ” and thathe “fai l [ed] t o s how pr et extor unl aw ful di s cr i m i nat i on. ” Mam bo v. R al ey’s of N. M. , Inc. , N o. 28, 892, s l i p op. at5 ( N . M . M ar . 20, 2006) . M ambo fi l ed a mot i on forr ehea r i ng i n t he N ew M exi co Supr eme C our t , w hi ch w as deni ed on A pr i l 18, 2006. I I . D i s cus s i on “O n appea l , w e r evi ew t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent de novo , a p p lyin g th e s a m e le g a l s ta n d a rd s a s e m p lo y e d b yth e d is tr ic t c o u rt . In d o in g so , w e re v iew th e re c o rd in th e lig h t m o st fa v o ra b le to th e p a rty oppos i ng s um m aryj udgm ent . ” B - S St eelof Kan . , Inc. v. Tex. Indus. , 439 F. 3d 653, 660 ( 10t h C i r . 2006) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T he fa m i l i ars t andar d r equi r es th a t su m m a ryju d g m e n t b e g ra n ted if “ th e p lea d in g s, d e p o sitio n s, a n sw e rs to i nt err ogat or i es , and admi s s i ons on fi l e, t ogetherw i t h t he affi davi t s , i f any , s how th a t th e re is n o g e n u in e iss u e a s to a n ym a ter ial fa c t an d th a t th e m o v in g p a rtyis en ti tl ed to a ju d g m en t as a m att er o f law . ” F ed . R . C iv. P. 56 (c).- 4-

A . Sum m ar

y Judgm ent D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on r equi r ed the di s t r i ctcour tt o cons i dert he pr ecl us i ve effectof Ma m b o I on Ma m b o II underN ew M exi co l aw . T he courtdi d s o by c a re f u llya n a ly z in g e a c h o f th e e lem e n ts o f

th e d o c trin e o f

re s ju d ica ta a s s e t fo rth i n M yers v. O ls on , 676 P. 2d 822, 824 ( N . M . 1984) . I tfound that( 1) al t hough V eharw as nota part yt o Mam bo I, R al ey ’ s and V eharw er e i n pr i vi t yforpurpos es of r es j udi cat a; ( 2) t he s ubj ectm at t erof ea ch s ui tw as i dent i cal ; ( 3) t he cha r act er and ca paci t yof the part i es w as t he s ame i n eac h s ui t ; and ( 4) bot h s ui t s i nvol ved t he s ame “caus e of a ct i on” forpurpos es of r es j udi cat a notw i t hs t andi ng t he t echni cal di ffe r ence s betw een pl ai nt i ff’ s s t at e and feder al cl ai m s . Si nce a l l t he elem en ts of

res jud icata w ere m et, the d istri ct co u rtco n clud ed that p lai n ti ff ’s cl ai m i n Ma m b o II

w a s p r e c l u d e d b y Mam bo I and ther efor e di s m i s s ed the ca s e. O n appea l , pl ai nt i ff c hal l enges pr i m ar i l yt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s fi ndi ng t hat V eharw as i n pr i vi t yw i t h R al ey ’ s . H e al s o ar gues t hathi s cl ai m s i n Mam bo I and Ma m b o II

w er e di ffe r entand thatt her e w as no fi nal j udgm entforpurpos es of r es j udi cat a bec aus e hi s appea l i n Mam bo I w as pendi ng w hen he f i l ed Ma m b o II. W e ar e notper s uaded bypl ai nt i ff’ s ar gum ent s . W e agr ee w i t h t he w el l - r eas oned opi ni on of the di s t r i ctcour tt hatt he el ement s of r es j udi cat a have been metunder th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f

th is c a s e a n d th a t p la in tiff ’s § 1 9 8 1 c la im is b a rr e d . T h e re fo re , w e a ffirm th e d istric t co u rt’s g ra n t o f su m m a ryju d g m e n t to d e fe n d a n ts fo r sub stan ti all ythe s am e re aso n s arti cu lat ed in it s A u g u st 18 , 2 0 0 5 , o rde r.“T h e ten -da yp eriod p resc ri b ed b yR u le 59 (e) b eg ins to ru n o n lyu p o n en try 1 of a fin a l j udgm ent . ” A nders on v. D eer e & C o. , 8 5 2 F . 2 d 1 2 4 4 , 1 2 4 6 (10 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). In th is c a se , ita p p e a rs th a t th e d istric t co u rt n e v e r e n ter e d a se p a ra te j udgm entpur s uantt o R ul e 58, and the A ugus t18, 2005, or derdoes nots at i s fy R u le 5 8 ’s s e p a ra te d o c u m e n t r e q u ir e m e n t. See C l ou gh v. R ush , 959 F. 2d 182, 185 ( 10t h C i r . 1992) ( hol di ng t hata di s t r i ctcour tor dercont ai ni ng det ai l ed l egal a n a lysis a n d re a s o n in g , s ta n d in g a lo n e , c o u ld n o t tr ig g e r a p p e a l p ro c e s s ). U ndert hes e ci r cumst ance s , j udgm entw as notent er ed forpurpos es of R ul e 59 u n til 1 5 0 d a y s a f

te r e n tr yo f

th e c o u rt ’s o rd e r i n th e c iv il d o c k e t. See F ed . R . C iv. P. 58 (b)(2 )(B ).

- 5- B . P l ai nt i

f f ’s P os t - Judgm entMot i ons Pl ai nt i ff a l s o chal l enges t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deni al of hi s M ot i on t o A m end O r derfi l ed A ugus t31, 2005, and hi s M ot i on t o R eques tR el i ef Fr om O r derfi l ed Sept ember 1, 2005. H e ar gues t hatt he courterr ed i n fi ndi ng hi s m ot i ons t i m e- barr ed underR ul e 59 and thathe s houl d have be en perm i t t ed t o fi l e an amended compl ai ntand s ur - r epl yi n oppos i t i on t o defe ndant s ’ m ot i on for su m m a ryju d g m e n t. W hi l e pl ai nt i ff i s t echni cal l ycorr ectt hathi s m ot i ons w er e t i m el yunder R u le 5 9 (e ), h is a p p e a l n o n e th e les s fa ils b e c a u se th e su b sta n tiv e b a se s o f h is 1 p o st-jud g m en t m o ti o n s lack ed m erit . A s a p ro se li ti g an t, the d istri ct co u rt cons t rued hi s m ot i ons i n t he mostfavor abl e l i ghtpos s i bl e and de ci ded them on t he mer i t s pur s uantt o R ul e 60( b) . T he courtconcl uded thati t s di s m i s s al of plai nti ff’s cl ai m s based o n res j ud i cat a w as not a m i st ake o f l aw becau se pl ai nt i ff’ s pendi ng appea l i n Ma m b o I d id n o t effec t th e finalityo f th e state c o u rt j udgm ent . I tal s o r ej ect ed pl ai nt i ff’ s cont ent i on t hatbeca us e of i t s di s pos i t i on on- 6-

s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t, Ma m b o I w as notdeci ded on the mer i t s . T he courtconcl uded t hatpl ai nt i ff ha d fai l ed t o s how extr aor di naryci r cumst ance s w arr ant i ng r el i ef underR ul e 60( b) and thatt her efor e, t he fi l i ng of an a m ended c om pl ai ntw as not per m i s s i bl e. O u r st an d ard o f re v iew is ab u se o f d iscreti o n , w h ethe r th e d istri ct co u rt c o n s tru e d p la in tiff ’s m o tio n s p u rs u a n t to R u le 5 9 (e ) o r 6 0 (b ). A dam s v. R el i ance St andar d Li

f e Ins . C o. , 2 2 5 F . 3 d 1 1 7 9 , 1 1 8 6 n . 5 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) (R u le 59 (e)); A l l enderv. R aytheon Ai r cr af tC o. , 4 3 9 F .3 d 1 2 3 6 , 1 2 4 2 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (R u le 6 0 (b )). In th is c a se , p lain tiff ’s p o st-ju d g m e n t m o tio n s s im p lyre h a sh e d a rg u m e n ts m ade i n r es pons e t o defe ndant s ’ m ot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent , w hi ch w e have alread yh eld w as p rop erlyg ran ted. W e li k ew ise co n clud e tha t th e d istri ct co u rt a c te d w ith in its d is c re tio n in d e n y in g th e p o s t-ju d g m e n t m o tio n s . T h e j u d g me n to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r ti s t h e r e fo r e AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M aryB eck Bri s coe C i r cui tJ udge