Janczak v. Tulsa Winch Group et al
Filing
157
OPINION AND ORDER by Judge Claire V Eagan that defendant may file a motion for summary judgment limited to the issue of damages only no later than 12/1/15 ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ( Miscellaneous Deadline set for 12/1/2015); denying 148 Motion to Dismiss (RGG, Chambers)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
PAUL JANCZAK,
Plaintiff,
v.
TULSA WINCH, INC.
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 13-CV-0154-CVE-FHM
OPINION AND ORDER
Now before the Court is Defendant’s Combined Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Brief in Support (Dkt. # 148). Defendant moves to dismiss
plaintiff’s claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), arguing the claim is moot because defendant
has paid plaintiff all damages to which he may be entitled. Id. at 6-7. Plaintiff responds that the
factual issue of whether plaintiff may be entitled to additional compensation has not been
conclusively established and that plaintiff’s claim is not moot. Dkt. # 150. Plaintiff asks the Court
to deny defendant’s motion. Id.
Plaintiff originally filed this action in 2013, alleging interference with the exercise of his
rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq., and retaliation
for engaging in protected activity under the FMLA. Dkt. # 1. Plaintiff asserts that defendant
interfered with his rights and retaliated against him for taking FMLA leave by terminating plaintiff’s
employment, refusing to pay post-termination compensation, refusing to reinstate plaintiff to his
position or a substantially equivalent position, and refusing to allow plaintiff to transfer to another
position. Id. at 6-8. This Court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, finding that
defendant had shown, as a matter of law, that it would have discharged plaintiff pursuant to a
restructuring plan regardless of plaintiff’s exercise of his FMLA rights. Dkt. # 121. On appeal, the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Court’s grant of summary judgment on the retaliation
claim, but reversed the ruling on the interference claim and remanded for further consideration. Dkt.
# 135. The Tenth Circuit concluded that summary judgment on the interference claim was
premature when the evidence defendant presented to show it would have terminated plaintiff’s
position regardless of his FMLA leave only showed that defendant was contemplating eliminating
the position and did not conclusively show that plaintiff’s termination would certainly have
occurred. Id. at 7.
Defendant subsequently filed this motion to dismiss plaintiff’s interference claim, arguing
that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff’s claim is moot. Dkt. # 148, at 1.
Defendant asserts that the Tenth Circuit explicitly or implicitly affirmed this Court’s factual findings
that defendant eliminated plaintiff’s position as part of a restructuring plan and that defendant paid
plaintiff through the entire restructuring period. Id. at 5. Defendant asserts that these factual
findings now apply as “law of the case.” Id. at 3. Defendant argues that, because these factual
issues have been conclusively decided, plaintiff’s claim is moot because plaintiff is entitled to no
damages beyond the restructuring period. Id. at 5. Plaintiff responds that the Tenth Circuit’s
explicit or implicit affirmance of a factual finding does not invoke the law of the case doctrine
because this doctrine does not apply to factual findings. Dkt. # 150, at 3. Plaintiff further responds
that plaintiff’s claim is not moot because disputed factual issues exist, demonstrating that there is
an actual case or controversy. Id. at 5.
2
First, defendant misapprehends the reach of the law of the case doctrine. The law of the case
doctrine, which is intended to prevent re-litigation of issues already decided in the same action, does
not apply to factual findings. Ayala v. United States, 49 F.3d 607, 610 (10th Cir. 1995) (“The law
of the case doctrine applies only to rules of law decided in the same case. Plaintiffs admit that the
doctrine does not prohibit reconsideration of the district court’s prior factual findings.” (citations
omitted)). Because the law of the case doctrine applies to rules of law only, defendant’s argument
that the Tenth Circuit’s explicit or implicit affirmance of this Court’s factual findings binds any
further proceedings to these facts lacks merit. Nothing in the law of the case doctrine precludes this
Court from reconsidering factual issues on remand.
Second, defendant misapplies the doctrine of mootness. A case becomes moot “if an event
occurs while a case is pending [] that makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief
whatever to the prevailing party.” Prier v. Steed, 456 F.3d 1209, 1213 (10th Cir. 2006). “Mootness
is a threshold issue because the existence of a live case or controversy is a constitutional prerequisite
to federal court jurisdiction.” Chihuahuan Grasslands Alliance v. Kempthorne, 545 F.3d 885, 891
(10th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). This Court has “no power to give opinions
upon moot questions or declare principles of law which cannot affect that matter in issue and the
case before it[.]” Id. Accordingly, “[o]nce a controversy ceases to exist, the action is moot and this
court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter.” Id. (internal quotation marks and alteration
omitted).
But defendant’s argument for dismissal is not an argument that the controversy between the
parties has ceased to exist. Defendant’s argument that it has paid plaintiff all damages to which he
is entitled is, in essence, an argument that no factual dispute exists as to damages to which plaintiff
3
is entitled or has received. Defendant’s argument is appropriately argued and considered under a
summary judgment standard, where the Court considers whether any genuine disputes of material
fact exist and whether a party is entitled to relief as a matter of law. It is not appropriately
characterized as an argument that the Court lacks the ability to grant any effectual relief to plaintiff.
As such, defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s claim is moot necessarily fails. Defendant’s motion
to dismiss should be denied, but the Court will permit defendant leave to file a motion for summary
judgment, limited to the issue of damages only.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Combined Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to
Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Brief in Support (Dkt. # 148) is denied.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant may file a motion for summary judgment
limited to the issue of damages only no later than December 1, 2015.
DATED this 17th day of November, 2015.
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?