Slaughter v. Atkins et al

Filing 242

ORDER granting 235 Motion to Stay Proceedings. Signed by Judge Elizabeth E. Foote on 09/24/2014. (Williams, Lysandra)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RALPH SLAUGHTER

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:09-00190

VERSUS

JUDGE ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE

DALE ATKINS, ET AL.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAREN HAYES

ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion To Stay Proceedings by Defendants, the Board of
Supervisors of Southern University and Agricultural and Mechanical College (the “Board”),
Tony Clayton (“Clayton”) and Lea Montgomery (“Montgomery”) [Record Document 235].
The motion was opposed by Plaintiff, Ralph Slaughter (“Slaughter”) [Record Document
238]. Defendants Clayton, Montgomery and the Board replied. [Record Document 239].
For the reasons that follow, the Defendants’ motion is hereby GRANTED. This matter is
STAYED pending resolution of the state court case.
BACKGROUND FACTS
The instant litigation arises out of the termination of Slaughter from his former
position as President of the Southern University System and the alleged retaliation against
Slaughter by the Board and some of its members. On April 3, 2009, Slaughter filed the
instant suit, alleging that the Defendants conspired to punish him and force him from his
position as President of Southern, in retaliation for the filing of the original federal litigation,
for engaging in activity protected by Title VII, and for providing testimony and evidence in
connection with the original federal litigation.1 Specifically, Slaughter alleges that the
1

Record Document 42, pp. 1-2, ¶ 2, which supplements and amends ¶ 17 on p. 5 of the original
complaint [Record Document 1]. At the time Slaughter filed his Complaint, he named the Board, Clayton,
Montgomery, Dale Atkins and Johnny Anderson as Defendants [Record Document 1]. Ms. Atkins and Mr.

Page 1

Defendants have violated Title VII,2 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(2) and (3), as well as
state laws for the torts of intentional infliction of emotional distress and abuse of rights.
On April 3, 2009, Slaughter also filed suit in the 19th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of Louisiana.3 In that suit, Slaughter named only the
Board as a Defendant. Slaughter argued that the Board engaged in “reprisal” in the
termination and non-renewal of his contract, in violation of Louisiana Revised Statute
23:967, because he instituted the original federal litigation and provided testimony and
evidence in connection with the original federal litigation.4 The state court suit was
dismissed with prejudice on August 21, 2014.5 Slaughter then filed a Motion and Order for
Suspensive Appeal to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals on September 2, 2014.6
On September 8, 2014, Defendants filed this Motion To Stay Proceedings, arguing that in
order to avoid the waste of judicial, state and private resources, and the possibility of
inconsistent verdicts, this Court should stay these proceedings until the state court
judgment is final.7
Defendants argue that the state court judgment will have res judicata effect once it
is final, and therefore, if Plaintiff’s appeal of the state court judgment is unsuccessful, they

Anderson have been dismissed from this suit. [Record Documents 158 and 237].
2
3
4
5
6
7

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
Record Document 235-3.
Id. at ¶ 52.
Record Document 235-5.
Record Document 235-6.
Record Document 235.

Page 2

will seek to amend their pending Motion for Summary Judgment8 on the grounds that the
present action is barred by res judicata.9 Thus, Defendants seek to have this case stayed
until the state court judgment is finalized.
Plaintiff argues that a stay in this case is inappropriate because res judicata will not
apply to the case at hand, even if the state court judgment is affirmed by the state appellate
court.10 Plaintiff argues that res judicata is inapplicable because the parties in the two cases
are different and each case has a different cause of action. Plaintiff notes that the state
court suit names only the Board as a Defendant, whereas the pending federal litigation
names the Board, Clayton and Montgomery as Defendants.11 The Plaintiff also states the
state court cause of action is based on “reprisal” in violation of Louisiana state statute and
the current federal litigation is based upon “retaliation” in violation of Title VII.12 Additionally,
Plaintiff argues that he will be subject to a prejudicial delay if this Court grants a stay.13
Defendants’ reply to Plaintiff’s opposition argues that, upon a final judgment in favor
of the Defendants in the state court case, res judicata would be in effect for the current
federal litigation.14 Defendants argue that “a federal court asked to give res judicata effect
to a state court judgment must apply the res judicata principles of law of the state whose

8
9

Record Document 146.
Record Document 235.

10
11
12
13
14

Record Document 238.
Record Document 238, p. 4.
Id.
Id. at p. 5.
Record Document 239-2.

Page 3

decision is set up as a bar to further litigation”15 and cite Louisiana Revised Statute
§13:4231, which provides the Louisiana law of res judicata.16 Defendants note that the
central inquiry in reviewing a claim of res judicata is whether the second action asserts a
cause of action that arises out of the transaction or occurrence which was the subject
matter of the first action.17
The Defendants state that there is an identity of parties between the state and
federal actions because Montgomery and Clayton have been sued in their official capacities
in the pending federal action.18 Defendants also argue that while the causes of action are
not identical, they both arise out of the same transaction or occurrence, as required under
Louisiana res judicata law.19
Therefore, Defendants believe that when the state court judgment is affirmed, they
will be entitled to res judicata on any pending federal law claims. Additionally, Defendants
15

Record Document 239-2, p. 2. (quoting Hernandez v. City of Lafayette, 699 F.2d 734, 736 (5th
Cir. 1982)).
16

Id. La. R.S. § 13:4231 states:
Except as otherwise provided by law, a valid and final judgment is conclusive between the
same parties, except on appeal or other direct review, to the following extent:
(1) If the judgment is in favor of the plaintiff, all causes of action existing at the time of final
judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation
are extinguished and merged in the judgment.
(2) If the judgment is in favor of the defendant, all causes of action existing at the time of final
judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation
are extinguished and the judgment bars a subsequent action on those causes of action.
(3) A judgment in favor of either the plaintiff or the defendant is conclusive, in any subsequent
action between them, with respect to any issue actually litigated and determined if its
determination was essential to that judgment.

17

Record Document 239-2, p. 3. (citing Tate v. Prewitt, 33,895 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/27/2000) 769 So.
2d 800, 803).
18

Record Document 239-2, p. 3. (citing Hudson v. City of Bossier, 33,620 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/25/00)
766 So. 2d 738, 743 and Forum for Equality PAC v. McKeithen, 2001-OC-2551 (La. 1/19/05) 893 So. 2d
738, 745).
19

Record Document 239-2, p. 5.

Page 4

note that Plaintiff is the party who sought relief in two different courts, and they are the
parties who will be prejudiced if they are forced to spend time and resources to defend
against identical allegations while suffering the risk of possibly inconsistent verdicts.20
LAW AND ANALYSIS
A federal district court has discretionary power to stay its hand pending the outcome
of a parallel state action as part of the court’s inherit power “to control the disposition of the
causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants.”
PPG Industries, Inc. v. Continental Oil Co., 478 F.2d 674, 682 (5th Cir. 1973)(quoting
Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). “[A]n order merely staying [an] action
‘does not constitute abnegation of judicial duty. On the contrary, it is a wise and productive
discharge of it. There is only postponement of decision for its best fruition.” Quackenbush
v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 721 (1996)(quoting Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City
of Thibodaux, 360 U.S. 25, 29 (1959)). In Glen Oaks Utilities, Inc. v. City of Houston, the
Fifth Circuit held that “since an appeal was pending from the state court judgment, it would
have been improper to dismiss the federal action on the ground of res judicata, but it was
proper that the proceedings in the federal court be stayed until final termination of the
proceedings in the state court.” 208 F.2d 330, 334 (5th Cir. 1960).
Here, the Plaintiff has argued that this Court should not grant Defendants’ Motion
To Stay because res judicata would be inapplicable to the case at hand, even if the state
appellate court affirms the state trial court’s judgment. In their briefs to this Court, both
Plaintiff and Defendants have applied the law of res judicata to the state court action and
the pending federal action.

20

Record Document 239-2, p. 6.

Page 5

This Court finds that it is premature to engage in a res judicata analysis of the two
cases because there has not been a final judgment in the state court proceedings.
However, Defendants have made a compelling case that res judicata may be appropriate
once the state court judgment is finalized.
For reasons of efficiency and the avoidance of waste, a federal district court is
authorized to stay a matter while a parallel state case is on appeal. Defendants are
persuasive in their argument that staying this matter would be a productive and efficient
discharge of this Court’s judicial duty. The Court finds that there is sufficient cause to
believe that until a final judgment is reached in state court, continued litigation of this matter
would be inefficient and wasteful. Therefore, the Court holds that a stay of proceedings is
appropriate.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Stay Proceedings [Record
Document 235] is hereby GRANTED. This matter is STAYED pending resolution of the
state court case.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Shreveport, Louisiana this 24th day of September,
2014.

Page 6