Grimes v. Barber et al

Filing 57

ORDER GRANTING 51 MOTION TO DISMISS. ***Civil Case Terminated.*** Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 2/26/2014. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/26/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JEROME L. GRIMES,

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO DISMISS
(Docket No. 51)

v.
OFFICER BARBER; OFFICER SMITH;
OFFICER TANG; and BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF CALIFORNIA STATE
UNIVERSITY,
Defendants.

14
15

No. C 12-3111 CW

________________________________/
Defendants Barber, Smith and Tang have filed a motion to

16
dismiss the Complaint.1

Plaintiff opposes the motion.

The matter

17
was taken under submission on the papers.

Having considered the

18
parties’ papers, the Court GRANTS the motion to dismiss.
19
BACKGROUND
20
On June 15, 2012, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that
21
he was injured by Defendants Officers Barber, Smith and Tang in
22
connection with a jay-walking incident on the San Francisco State
23
University campus.

Defendants Barber, Smith and Tang are peace

24
25
26
1

27
28

The Court previously dismissed the complaint as to
Defendant Board of Trustees of California State Universities.
Docket No. 13.

See

1

officers employed by the San Francisco State University Police

2

Department.
This case is related to a prior action in which Plaintiff

3
4

brought the same claims against these Defendants.

5

Barber, Case No. 09-411 (N.D. Cal.).

6

held in that case before Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Laporte and

7

the parties agreed to a settlement. (C 09-0411 CW, Docket No. 48).

8

See Grimes v.

A settlement conference was

On September 17, 2009, the Court issued a conditional order of

9
dismissal which indicated that if, within ninety days, any party
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

certified to the Court that the agreed amount of consideration had

12

not been delivered, the order would be vacated and the case would

13

be set for trial. (C 09-0411 CW, Docket No. 49).

14

2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from settlement, which

15

was heard by Magistrate Judge Laporte.

16

On September 21,

On December 23, 2009, the

Court adopted Magistrate Judge Laporte’s report and recommendation

17
and denied Plaintiff’s motion for relief from settlement.

(C 09-

18
0411 CW, Docket Nos. 58, 60).

On January 4, 2010, Plaintiff filed

19
20

a declaration stating that he had not received from Defendants,

21

within ninety days from the date of the Conditional Order of

22

Dismissal, the agreed consideration for the settlement of his

23

case.

24

Court issued an Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Declaration.

25

(C 09-0411 CW, Docket No. 62).

On February 11, 2010, the
The

Court noted that Defendants’ counsel had submitted a declaration

26
stating that, until she received the Court's December 23, 2009
27
28

order denying Plaintiff's motion for relief from settlement, she
2

1

did not know whether the settlement would be vacated by court

2

order.

3

after the Court denied Plaintiff’s motion.

4

defense counsel reasonably waited until the Court ruled on

5

Plaintiff's motion before sending him the settlement check.

6

She had sent Plaintiff the settlement check immediately
The Court found that

The

Court further found that, by filing his January 4, 2010

7
declaration, Plaintiff was attempting once again to obtain relief
8
9

from settlement.

The Court indicated that it had ruled on that

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

issue, that it would not revisit it and that any further papers

11

submitted by Plaintiff attempting to vacate his settlement would

12

be returned to him by the clerk. (C 09-0411 CW, Docket No. 66).

13
14

In two other lawsuits, Plaintiff attempted to re-litigate the
issues that he asserted and settled in C 09-0411 CW.

See C 10-

15
1086 CW; C 11-2120 CW.

In both of those cases, the Court granted

16
Plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed the
17
18

complaint pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).

Plaintiff has now

19

filed a modified version of the complaint that he filed in C 11-

20

3120 and paid the civil case filing fee.

21
22
23

In the instant complaint, Plaintiff again alleges that, in
C 09-0411 CW, the Court improperly denied his motion to set aside
the settlement because Defendants failed to pay him or to expunge

24
his record of false charges within ninety days of the Conditional
25
26
27

Dismissal Order.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants should have

been fired and required to apologize to him.

28
3

DISCUSSION

1

The doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, prohibits

2
3

the re-litigation of any claims that were raised or could have

4

been raised in a prior action.

5

Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064, 1077 (9th Cir. 2003).

6

Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v.

The purpose of the doctrine is to “relieve parties of the cost and

7
vexation of multiple law suits, conserve judicial resources, and,
8
9

by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

adjudication.”

11

590, 594 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90,

12

94 (1980)).

13

when doing so does not raise any disputed issues of fact.

14

Marin v. HEW, Health Care Fin. Agency, 769 F.2d

Res judicata may be raised on a motion to dismiss
Scott

v. Kuhlmann, 746 F.2d 1377, 1378 (9th Cir. 1984).

15
Three elements must be present in order for res judicata to
16
apply: (1) an identity of claims; (2) a final judgment on the
17
18

merits; and (3) the same parties or their privies.

Allen, 449

19

U.S. at 94.

20

Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim must be dismissed.

21
22
23

Because all three of these elements are present here,

An identity of claims exists when two suits arise from the
same transactional nucleus of facts.
1078.

Tahoe-Sierra, 322 F.3d at

Two events are part of the same transaction or series of

24
transactions where the claims share a factual foundation such that
25
26
27

they could have been tried together.

Western Systems, Inc. v.

Ulloa, 958 F.2d 864, 871 (9th Cir. 1992).

28
4

“Different theories

1
2
3

supporting the same claim for relief must be brought in the
initial action.”

Id.

Here, Plaintiff seeks to re-litigate claims related to the

4

2008 jay-walking incident.

5

Plaintiff’s claims related to this incident in C 09-9411 CW.

6

Plaintiff and Defendants settled
It

is well established that court-approved settlement agreements,

7
such as the agreement in the 2009 case, have res judicata effect.
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746-47
(9th Cir. 2006).
Plaintiff argues that the settlement agreement was the

12

product of intimidation and other wrongful tactics.

13

Court addressed those issues in the 2009 case, when it denied

14

Plaintiff’s motion for relief from settlement.

However, the

(C 09-0411 CW,

15
Docket No. 60).
16
In his opposition to the motion to dismiss Plaintiff argues
17
18

that Defendants did not fulfill their obligations under the terms

19

of the agreement because they did not cooperate with him in his

20

attempt to remove from his arrest record the offense of battery on

21

a peace officer that arose from the 2008 jay-walking incident.

22

However, as Defendants demonstrate, they informed Plaintiff,

23

“Until you institute formal proceedings to amend your arrest

24
record, the SFSU Police Department cannot unilaterally redact the
25
26

arrest report or remove it from its records.”

(C 09-0411 CW,

27

Docket No. 64)

Moreover, an exhibit to Plaintiff’s amended

28

complaint indicates that his petition to have the offense removed
5

1
2

from his record pursuant to California Penal Code § 851.8 was
denied because it was not timely filed.

3

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the

4

doctrine of res judicata.

5

Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

6

Docket No. 2 at 33.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS
Because amendment would be futile,

the dismissal is without leave to amend.

The parties shall bear

7
their own costs.

The clerk shall enter judgment and close the

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12
13

Dated:

2/26/2014

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6