Molina-Olivo v. Experience Works Inc.

Filing 13

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 10 MOTION for Reconsideration. We hereby VACATE our prior order granting Plaintiff's motion for dismissal without prejudice (Docket No. 8 ). We DENY Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal (Docket No. 7 ). We GRANT Defendant's motion for dismissal (Docket No. 4 ). We DISMISS Plaintiff's claims WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Chief Judge Jose A Fuste on 12/10/09.(mrj)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT D IS T R IC T OF PUERTO RICO O L G A MOLINA-OLIVO, P la in tif f , v. E X P E R IE N C E WORKS, INC., D e f e n d a n t.

C i v il No. 09-1839 (JAF)

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

O P I N I O N AND ORDER D e f e n d a n t, Experience Works, Inc., moves this court under Federal Rule of Civil P ro c e d u re 59(e) to reconsider our prior order (Docket No. 8) granting dismissal without p rejud ice to Plaintiff, Olga Molina-Olivo. (Docket No. 10.) Defendant argues that the prior d is p o s itio n was a manifest error of law and should be amended to a dismissal with prejudice. (D o ck et Nos. 11; 12.) I. F a c t u a l and Procedural Synopsis P la in tif f filed her first action against Defendant in this court on April 7, 2009, alleging v io l a ti o n s of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e­2000e-17, and v ariou s Puerto Rico laws. See Molina-Olivo v. Experience Works, Inc., Civil No. 09-1331 (JP) (" M o lin a -O liv o I"). The court granted summary judgment to the Defendant and dismissed all

Civil No. 09-1839 (JAF)

-2 -

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

o f Plaintiff's claims with prejudice on June 17, 2009. Plaintiff appealed that decision to the F irst Circuit, though she eventually withdrew her appeal voluntarily. Before the district court is s u e d its final order, Plaintiff filed a parallel action in Commonwealth court claiming " v io la tio n s of applicable labor laws" without citing any particular federal or Commonwealth la w . (Docket No. 1-2 at 4.) Defendant removed that case to this court on August 24, 2009 (D o c k e t No. 1), and filed a motion for dismissal or summary judgment in the alternative. (D o c k e t No. 4). In its motion for dismissal, Defendant argued that Plaintiff's claims had been p r e s e n te d in Molina-Olivo I and were, thus, barred by res judicata. (Id.) While Defendant's m o tio n was pending, Plaintiff moved for voluntary dismissal of her claims without prejudice. ( D o c k e t No. 7.) Four days later, we granted Plaintiff's motion without ruling on Defendant's p en d in g motion. (Docket No. 8.) II. R u le 59(e) Standard R u le 59(e) allows any to party to move the court to alter or amend a judgment within ten d a ys of its entry. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Case law has expanded upon the sparse text of the rule to require that movants "clearly establish a manifest error of law or . . . present newly d is c o v e re d evidence." FDIC v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992).

Civil No. 09-1839 (JAF)

-3 -

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

III. A n a l y s is D e f e n d a n t argues that our granting Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal without p re ju d ic e was a manifest error of law on three grounds: (1) Plaintiff did not meet the standard f o r dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41; (2) the order was e n te re d before the end of the ten-day period provided by the Local Rules, see L.Cv.R. 7(b), in w h ic h to object to a motion; and (3) since Plaintiff's claim was precluded under res judicata d o ctrin e, Defendant's motion to dismiss should have been granted. (Docket No. 11.) R e s judicata doctrine dictates that a "final judgment on the merits of an action precludes th e parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that a c tio n ." Coors Brewing Co. v. Méndez-Torres, 562 F.3d 3, 8 (1st Cir. 2009). Federal law of re s judicata governs where "both the potentially precluding suit and the potentially precluded s u it were litigated in federal courts." Mass. Sch. of Law v. ABA, 142 F.3d 26, 37 (1st Cir. 1 9 9 8 ). A court must find the presence of three conditions before it applies res judicata to d is m is s a claim: "(1) a final judgment on the merits in an earlier suit, (2) sufficient identicality b e tw e e n the causes of action asserted in the earlier and later suits, and (3) sufficient identicality b e t w e e n the parties in the two suits." Coors, 562 F.3d at 8 (citation omitted). "Finality" for res ju d ic a ta purposes is equivalent to "finality" of a judgment for purposes of appeal. See AVX C o rp . v. Cabot Corp., 424 F.3d 28, 32-33 (1st Cir. 2005). Therefore, a judgment is final when it "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the

Civil No. 09-1839 (JAF)

-4 -

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

ju d g m e n t." Whitfield v. Municipality of Fajardo, 564 F.3d 40, 45 (1st Cir. 2009) (citation o m itte d ). A decision retains its "finality" for preclusion purposes even while an appeal from th a t decision is pending. See Deposit Bank v. Frankfort, 191 U.S. 499 (1913); In re Kane, 254 F .3 d 325, 328 (1st Cir. 2001). Causes of action are sufficiently identical if they arise out of a c o m m o n nucleus of operative facts. Mass. Sch. of Law, 142 F.3d at 38. In the present case, the doctrine of res judicata precluded Plaintiff's claims from being trie d before this court. First, the court's order in Molina-Olivo I was a final judgment on the m e rits because it was a summary judgment disposing of all claims; the pendency of an appeal d o e s not affect the application of res judicata. Second, both Molina-Olivo I and the present case a ro se from the same alleged incidents of sexual harrassment in the workplace. The present c la im s of "violations of applicable labor laws" are sufficiently identical to the Title VII and P u e rto Rico law claims in Molina-Olivo I. Even if the claims in this case were based on d if f ere n t statutes, these claims should have been brought along with the other discrimination and h a ra s s m e n t claims in Molina-Olivo I. Third, the parties are clearly identical. D e f en d a n t timely raised res judicata in its motion for dismissal ­ a motion that preceded P la in tif f 's motion for voluntary dismissal. (Docket No. 4.) The claims in the present suit were c lea rly precluded by res judicata. Therefore, our entry of a judgment of dismissal without p r e ju d ic e was a manifest error of law. As we have reconsidered our motion on this basis, it is u n n ec e ssa ry to consider the two additional bases raised by Defendant for amending our ju d g m e n t to a dismissal with prejudice.

Civil No. 09-1839 (JAF)

-5 -

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

IV . C o n c lu s io n F o r the reasons stated above, we GRANT Defendant's motion for reconsideration (D o c k e t No. 10). We hereby VACATE our prior order granting Plaintiff's motion for dismissal w ith o u t prejudice (Docket No. 8). We DENY Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal (D o c k e t No. 7). We GRANT Defendant's motion for dismissal (Docket No. 4). We DISMISS P la in t if f ' s claims WITH PREJUDICE. I T IS SO ORDERED. S a n Juan, Puerto Rico, this 10 th day of December, 2009. s/José Antonio Fusté JOSE ANTONIO FUSTE C h ie f U.S. District Judge