T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he H onor abl e J e d S . R a kof f , S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tJ udge f or ** the S outhe rn D i s tr i c tof N e w Y ork, s i tt i ng by de s i gna t i on. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AL I C I A WOL I N, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. C IT Y O F L O S A N G E L E S , a m u n i ci p al i ty; W I LLI E W I LLI A M S, BERN A RD P AR KS , WI L L I AM J . B R AT T ON , J AM ES M CDON NELL , D efen d an t s-A p p el l ees. N o. 11- 55817 D i s t . C t . N o . 2 : 1 0 - c v - 0 8 3 0 6 - C B MP JW

ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia C ons ue l o B . M a r s ha l l , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 15, 2013

P a s a d e n a , C a lif

o rn ia B ef ore: B E R Z O N and W A T F O R D , C i rc ui tJudg es , and R A K O F F , S eni or D i stri ct Judg e. ** 

# FI LED APR29 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

A l i c i aW ol i n appe a l s f

r om the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s j udgm e nti n f a vorof defe nd ant s i n h erac t i on al l egi ng thatshe w as deni ed a prom ot i on t o L i eut enantof the L os A nge l e s P ol i c e D e pa r tm e ntbe c a us e of he rge nde r . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o . In tri -P l ex T ech s. , In c. v. Crest G roup , Inc. , 4 9 9 F .3 d 1 0 4 8 , 1 0 5 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) . T hi s i s W ol i n’ s s ec on d j ud i ci al proceedi ng chal l engi ng defe nd ant s’ al l eged r e f us a l t o pr om ot e he rt o L i e ut e na nt . W ol i n pr e vi ous l y pe t i t i one d the S upe r i or C our tof L os A nge l e s f

ora w r i tof

m a nda t e tha tw oul d ha ve ove r turne d the adm i ni stra t i ve det erm i nat i on of the L os A ng el es P ol i ce D epartm entdenyi ng her cl ai m for aprom ot i on and b ac k p ay . A ft ershe l osti n S up er i or C ou rtand o n app ea l a t th e C o u r t o f

A p p e a l, s h e b r o u g h t th e in s ta n t a c tio n a lle g in g th a t th e f a ilu r e to prom ot e has vi ol at ed vari ou s s t at e a nd fe dera l l aw s. B ec ause w e c on cl ud e that W ol i n’ s c l ai m i s barre d b y the do ctri ne of r e s ju d ic a ta , w e a ff i rm the di stri ct c o u r t’s ju d g m e n t.

“ Iti s s ett l ed thatthe do ctri ne of r e s j udi c ata appl i e s t o j udgm e nt s on the m er i t s i n p roce edi ng s i n m andam us. ” H o lly w o o d C ir c le , I n c . v . D e p ’ t o f A lc o h o lic B e v e r age C ontr ol , 5 5 C a l.2 d 7 2 8 , 7 3 3 ( 1 9 6 1 ) . M o r e o v e r , s ta te c o u r t ju d g m e n ts have the sa m e f

ul l fa i th and cr edi ti n feder al court s a s they do i n the st at es i n w hi ch the y a r e r e nde r e d. T hus , a f e de r a l c our tc a l l e d upon t o de t e rm i ne the pr e c l us i ve ef fe ctof a s t at e j ud gm entm ustappl y the cl ai m prec l usi on l aw of the st at e i n w hi ch3

th e o r ig in a l ju d g m e n t w a s r e n d e r e d . A da m B r o s . Fa rm in g, I n c . v . C o u n ty o

f Sa n ta B a rb a ra , 60 4 F . 3d 11 42 , 11 48 (9th C i r. 20 10 ). U nd erC al i forni a l aw , three r e qui r e m e nt s m us tbe m e tt o e s t abl i s h the de f e ns e of c l a i m pr e c l us i on. T he d e f e n d a n t m u s t p r o v e th a t “( 1 ) [ a ] c la im o ris s u e r a is e d in th e p r e s e n t a c tio n is i de nt i c a l t o ac l a i m ori s s ue l i t i ga t e d i n a pr i orpr oc e e di ng; ( 2) the pr i orpr oc e e di ng r e s ul t e d i n af

i na l j udgm e nton the m e r i t s ; a nd ( 3) the pa r ty a ga i ns tw hom the doc tr i ne i s be i ng a s s e r t e d w a s a pa r ty ori n pr i vi ty w i th a pa r ty t o the pr i or p r o c e e d in g .” B o e ke n v . P h ilip Mo r r is , 230 P . 3d 342, 348 ( C a l . 2010) ( quot i ng P e opl e v . B ar r agan, 8 3 P .3 d 4 8 0 , 4 9 2 ( 2 0 0 4 ) ) . U nde rC a l i f

orni al a w , t o de t e rm i ne w he the rtw o pr oc e e di ngs i nvol ve id e n tic a l c a u s e s o f

a c tio n f o rth e p u rp o s e o f

th e c la im p r e c lu s io n a n a ly s is , c o u r ts ap p ly th e s o - c a lle d “p r im a ry r ig h ts ” th e o ry . “U n d e rth is th e o ry , ac a u s e o f a c tio n . . . a r is e s o u t o f

a n a n te c e d e n t p r im a ry r ig h t a n d c o rr e s p o n d in g d u ty [ ,] a n d th e . . . brea ch . . . . ” B oeke n , 230 P . 3d a t348. F ur the rm or e , the m os ts i gni f i c a nt c ons i de r a t i on unde rC a l i f orni a ’ s “ pr i m a ry r i ght s ” the ory i s the ha rm s uf f e r e d by the pl a i nt i f

f: “ [ t ] he c a us e of

a c t i on i s the r i ghtt o obt a i n r e dr e s s f ora ha rm s uf

f e r e d, r e ga r dl e s s of

the s pe c i f

i c r e m e dy s oughtorthe l e ga l the ory ( c om m on l a w or st atut ory) advanced. ” Id . In th e in stan t cas e, th e d istrict co u rt co rr ec tl y d eter m in ed th at W o li n ’s ac t i on s i n st at e a nd fe dera l courti nv ol ve the sa m e “ pri m ary r i gh t . ” I n b oth h er4

f e de r a l a nd s t a t e c our tpr oc e e di ngs , the ha rm aboutw hi c h W ol i n c om pl a i ns i s the defe nd ant s’ al l egedl y w rong ful re fusa l t o g ra nther aprom ot i on . A ss ert i ng her a l l e ge d pr i m a ry r i ghtt o apr om ot i on unde rc i vi l r i ght s l a w s , a s oppos e d t o the c ons e ntde c r e e , doe s nota l l e ge a ne w i nj ury unde rC a l i f orni a ’ s c l a i m pr e c l us i on la w . Se e T

a ka h a s h i v . B d. o

f T r u s te e s o f L iv in gs to n U

n io n Sc h . D is t. , 783 F . 2d 848, 85 1 (9th C i r. 19 86 ). W e ha ve c ons i de r e d W ol i n’ s r e m a i ni ng a r gum e nt s a nd f i nd the m t o be w ith o u t m e r it. AF F I RME D.- 1-

W ol i n v. C i t

y of L os A ng eles , N o. 11- 55817 B E R Z O N , C i r c ui tJ udge , di s s e nt i ng: I r e s p e c tf u lly d is s e n t. T h e m a

jo r ity ’s o v e r a ll ap p r o a c h to th e c la im p recl u si o n effect of a d en i al o f m an d am u s i s co n si st en tw i th tw o o f o u r p ri o r cases, T akah ashiv. B oa rd of

T rustees of

L i vi ngston U

ni on Scho olD istri ct , 783 F . 2d 848 ( 9th C i r . 1986) , a nd M

a n u f a ctu red H o m e C o m m u n i t i es In c. v. C i t y o f Sa n Jo se , 420 F . 3d 1022 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . B uti ti s notc ons i s t e ntw i th a n e a r l i e ropi ni on, G al lag her v . Fry e , 63 1 F . 2d 12 7 (9th C i r. 19 80 ). C al i forni a c as e l aw af t er G al lag heri s s om ew hatm urky, bu tm y r ea di ng of the C al i forni a S up re m e C ou rt ca se s i nd i ca t es that , w er e i tt o add re ss the qu es t i on , the C al i forni a S up re m e C ou rt w ou l d h ol d thatdeni al s of m andam us ca n h ave is s ue b u t n o t c la im pr e c l us i ve e f f e c t a s to c a u s e s o f

a c tio n s o u n d in g in to r t, o r , b y a n a lo g y , § 1 9 8 3 a c tio n s . See Kav anau v . Santa Moni c a R e nt C ontr ol B d. , 16 C a l . 4th 761, 779 ( 1997) ( c i t i ng e x c e p tio n s to th e g e n e r a l ru le a g a in s t s p littin g c la im s ) ; W es t lake Cm t

y. H osp. v. Su p eri o r C o u rt , 1 7 C a l. 3 d 4 6 5 , 4 8 4 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ( r e q u ir in g m a n d a m u s r e v ie w p r io rto in s titu tio n o f

a to r t a c tio n f

o rd e n ia l o f

m e d ic a l s ta f

f p r iv ile g e s ) ; H

ol l yw oo d C i rc l e, I nc . v . D e p’ t of A lc ohol i c B e v e r age C ontr ol , 55 C a l . 2d 728, 733 ( 1961) ( hol di ng tha tj udgm e nt s on the m e r i t s i n m a nda m us pr oc e e di ngs ha ve i s s ue pr e c l us i ve e f f e c t ) . T hus , i f

w e ne e de d t o de t e rm i ne the c l a i m pr e c l us i on i m pa c tof m a nda m us 

# FI LED APR29 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS- 2-

d e n ia ls u n d e rC a lif

o rn iala w , w e w o u ld p r o b ab ly h a v e to g o e n b a n c to r e c o n c ile G al lag herw i th T

akahas hia nd Ma n u

f a c tu r e d Ho me— or , pe rhaps be tt e r , c e r t i f y the q u e s tio n , w h ic h is a r e c u rr in g o n e , to th e C a lif o rn iaS u p r e m e C o u r t. I w ou l d n ot , ho w ever , t ake thatcourse i n thi s c as e, as I do n otbel i eve there w oul d be c l a i m pr e c l us i ve e f f e c te ve n i f

C a l i f orni a ’ s us ua l “ pr i m a ry r i ght s ” t e s tf or cl ai m prec l usi on w er e app l i cabl e. Iti s f ac i l e t o d ef

i ne the i nj ury W ol i n suffe re d as the deni al of a prom ot i on , and t o charac t er i ze her c l ai m s i n the st at e a nd fe dera l p r o c e e d in g s a s m e r e ly tw o d if f e r e n t th e o r ie s a s to w h y th a t d e n ia l w a s w r o n g f u l: f ir s t, b e c a u s e it v io la te d th e te rm s o f a c o n s e n t d e c r e e , a n d s e c o n d , b e c a u s e it r e s ul t e d f

r om the e m pl oy e r ’ s di s c r i m i na t i on a ga i ns tW ol i n on the ba s i s of he rs e x. W hi l e, “ un der the pri m ary r i gh t s theory, the det erm i nat i ve fa ct or i s the harm suff er ed, ” B oe ke n v . P hi l i

p Mor r is U

SA , I nc . , 48 C a l . 4th 788, 798 ( 2010) , the s a m e w r o n g f

u l c o n d u c t c a n v io la te d if f e r e n t p r im a ry r ig h ts , se e L e P arc Cm t y. A s s ’ n v . W

orke rs ’C om

p. Appe al

s B d. , 110 C a l . A pp. 4th 1161, 1170–72 ( 2003) ( hol di ng tha ta c l a i m f

orw orke r s ’ c om pe ns a t i on be ne f i t s a nd at or ta c t i on f

or d a m a g e s d o n o t in v o lv e th e s a m e p r im a ry r ig h t) . I f w e f o llo w th e C a lif

o rn ia S u p r e m e C o u r t’s d e f

in itio n o f a “c a u s e o f

a c tio n ” a s th e p r im a ry r ig h t and the b r e a c h o f

th e c o rr e s p o n d in g d u ty , ta k e n to g e th e r , B oeke n , 48 C al . 4th at79 2, then the c a us e s of

a c t i on i n W ol i n’ s s t a t e a nd f e de r a l c our tpr oc e e di ngs a r e notthe- 3-

s a m e . I n o n e a c tio n , th e d u ty a lle g e d ly b r e a c h e d b y th e L A P D w a s th e d u ty to c o m p ly w ith th e h ir in g ta r g e ts id e n tif ie d in th e H u n te r - L A L E A c o n s e n t d e c r e e ; in the othe r , i tw a s the duty nott o di s c r i m i na t e a ga i ns ta n i ndi vi dua l e m pl oy e e on the ba s i s of he rs e x. P uta nothe rw a y , the ha rm s uf f e r e d i n the f

i r s ti ns t a nc e w a s the ha rm of br e a c h of

pr om i s e , w hi l e the ha rm s uf f e r e d i n the s e c ond i ns t a nc e w a s the in d ig n ity o f

d is c r im in a tio n . I n T akahas hi , the du ty a ti ss ue i n the pl ai nt i ff’ s s t at e c ou rtac t i on subsum ed the duty a ti s s ue i n he rf e de r a l a c t i on: he rm a nda m us a c t i on c onc e rne d the e m pl oy e r ’ s obl i ga t i on nott o t e rm i na t e he rw i thoutc a us e , w hi l e he r§ 1983 a c t i on c onc e rne d the obl i ga t i on nott o t e rm i na t e he rbe c a us e of he rs e x a nd e thni c or i gi n. 78 3 F . 2d at84 9. T he l att erdu ty i s j usta m ore s peci fi c obl i gat i on w i thi n the form er du ty, i n thatan i nd i vi du al ’ s s ex or ethn i c ori gi n can never be ca u se f ort e rm i na t i on. H er e, ho w ever , the se tt l em entagre em ental l egedl y bre ac hed o st ensi bl y provi ded f orpr om ot i on of

i ndi vi dua l w om e n w ho ha d ne ve rbe e n di s c r i m i na t e d a ga i ns t , a nd so d i d n o ten co m p ass th e ri g h tt o eq u al p ro t ect i o n , w h i ch i s th e b asi s o f W o l i n ’ s § 1983 a c t i on. W hi l e the L A P D m i gh tno thave had an affi rm at i ve du ty und erthe H un t er L A L E A c ons e ntde c r e e t o pr om ot e W ol i n on a c c ountof he rs e x, i tha d aduty not t o d eny hera prom ot i on for w hi ch she w as otherw i se qu al i fi ed on ac coun tof her- 4-

s e x. T he s e dut i e s a r e di f f e r e nt , a s a r e the pr i m a ry r i ght s i nvoke d. B e c a us e W ol i n a l l e ge d the vi ol a t i on of di f f e r e ntpr i m a ry r i ght s i n the m a nda m us a c t i on a nd i n thi s c a s e , I w oul d r e ve r s e the hol di ng t o the c ontr a ry a nd r e m a n d th e c a s e .