Noah Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals America

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-01002-AJT-TRJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999236809].. [13-1052]

Appeal: 13-1052

Doc: 36

Filed: 11/08/2013

Pg: 1 of 5

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1052

NOAH NATHAN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
TAKEDA
PHARMACEUTICALS
AMERICA,
INCORPORATED;
TAKEDA
PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC., f/k/a Takeda Pharmaceuticals
North America, Incorporated; LOUIS SAVANT; MICHAEL FOUCHIE;
CASANDRA SMITH; JOHN FLOOD; MICHAEL VENANZI,
Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-01002-AJT-TRJ)

Submitted:

October 29, 2013

Decided:

November 8, 2013

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christian B. Nagel, FLUET, HUBER & HOANG, PLLC, Lake Ridge,
Virginia; James A. Bell, IV, BELL & BELL LLP, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, for Appellant. Susan R. Podolsky, THE LAW OFFICES
OF
SUSAN
R.
PODOLSKY,
Alexandria,
Virginia;
William
F.
Cavanaugh, Aron R. Fischer, PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP,
New York, New York, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1052

Doc: 36

Filed: 11/08/2013

Pg: 2 of 5

PER CURIAM:
Noah Nathan filed this action against his employer, Takeda
Pharmaceuticals
asserting

America,

claims

supervision

and

for

Inc.,

and

several

defamation,

retention.

Among

of

its

conspiracy,
other

employees,

and

reasons,

negligent

the

district

court dismissed the complaint on federal res judicata grounds,
finding that it is precluded by the judgment in Nathan’s prior
Title VII discrimination and retaliation suit against Takeda.
See Nathan v. Takeda Pharms. Am., Inc., 890 F.Supp.2d 629 (E.D.
Va.

2012),

aff’d,

2013

WL

5754394

(4th

Cir.

Oct.

24,

2013)

(Title VII summary judgment order). Nathan now appeals. Finding
no error, we affirm. 1
The preclusive effect of the judgment in Nathan’s Title VII
action is a question of federal law. See Taylor v. Sturgell, 553
U.S.

880,

891

(2008).

Under

the

federal

doctrine

of

res

judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes
the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were
or could have been raised in that action. Pueschel v. United
States,

369

F.3d

345,

354

(4th

1

Cir.

2004).

“By

precluding

Apart from res judicata, the district court in this case
also dismissed the individual claims under Rule 12(b)(6) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nathan challenges those
rulings on appeal, but because we find that the court properly
dismissed the complaint on res judicata grounds, we need not
address the other issues.

2

Appeal: 13-1052

Doc: 36

Filed: 11/08/2013

Pg: 3 of 5

parties from contesting matters that they have had a full and
fair

opportunity

to

litigate,

the

doctrine

of

res

judicata

minimizes the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits,
conserves judicial resources, and fosters reliance on judicial
action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions.”
Union Carbide Corp. v. Richards, 721 F.3d 307, 314 (4th Cir.
2013) (internal punctuation altered).
A

party

invoking

res

judicata

must

establish

three

elements: (1) a previous final judgment on the merits, (2) an
identity of the cause of action in both the earlier and the
later suit, and (3) an identity of parties or their privies in
the two suits. Id. at 314-15. Identity of the cause of action
exists if two claims arise out of the same transaction or series
of

transactions

or

the

same

core

of

operative

facts,

and

“typically it is a new factual development that gives rise to a
fresh

cause

of

action.”

Id.

at

315.

Privity

between

parties

exists when the interests of one party are so identified with
the interests of another that representation by one party is
representation of the other’s legal right. Weinberger v. Tucker,
510 F.3d 486, 491 (4th Cir. 2007). We review a res judicata
determination de novo. Clodfelter v. Republic of Sudan, 720 F.3d
199, 210 (4th Cir. 2013).
In its res judicata ruling, the district court initially
noted that the factual allegations set forth in the Title VII
3

Appeal: 13-1052

Doc: 36

Filed: 11/08/2013

Pg: 4 of 5

complaint “are identical” to those set forth in the complaint in
this case. J.A. 170. 2 Turning to the first of the three elements
necessary to establish res judicata, the court found that the
judgment in Nathan’s Title VII action is a final judgment on the
merits of a prior suit. Regarding the second element, the court
found that there is an identity of the causes of action between
the

two

complaints,

“as

evidenced

by

the

exact

same

facts

alleged in support of each of those lawsuits.” J.A. 171. As to
the third element, the court found that the defendants in this
case

are

in

privity

with

Takeda,

the

Title

VII

defendant,

because they are alleged to be Takeda employees and were clearly
acting as Takeda employees at all material times. On appeal,
Nathan concedes that there is a prior final judgment, but he
challenges

the

court’s

conclusions

regarding

identity

of

the

causes of action and the parties.
As

to

identity

of

the

causes

of

action,

the

alleged

wrongdoing underlying Nathan’s claims in this case arises from
the

same

involve

facts
the

performance

underlying

defendants’
difficulties

the

Title

conduct
in

2009.

VII

action.

regarding
In

the

Both

Nathan’s
Title

VII

cases

alleged
Action,

Nathan alleged that the defendants’ actions were discriminatory
2

Nathan acknowledges in his appellate brief that “there is
a great similarity between the allegations” in the two
complaints. Brief of Appellant, at 17 n.5.

4

Appeal: 13-1052

Doc: 36

Filed: 11/08/2013

Pg: 5 of 5

and retaliatory; in this case, he alleges that the same actions
constituted

a

circumstances,

conspiracy
we

agree

with

to

defame

the

him.

district

Under

court

these

that

these

claims arise out of the same transaction or the same core of
operative facts. Likewise, we agree with the court that there is
an identity of the parties in the two lawsuits. The Title VII
case was against Takeda. In this case, the individual defendants
were acting in their capacities as Takeda employees when they
committed

the

alleged

wrongdoing,

and

Takeda’s

potential

liability rests on respondeat superior. 3
Based

on

the

foregoing,

we

affirm

the

district

court’s

judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3

A review of the Title VII summary judgment order shows
that the district court addressed each of the individual
defendants’ involvement in Nathan’s 2009 performance review.
Moreover, the court found on the record before it that “Takeda
had legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for [all] of the
alleged adverse employment actions” it took regarding Nathan and
that Nathan was unable to demonstrate pretext for those actions.
See 890 F.Supp.2d at 648.

5