McIntyre v. Ben E Keith Company
Filing
5
Memorandum Opinion and Order: The court ORDERS that plaintiff's claims in this action be, and are hereby, dismissed with prejudice. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 3/20/2018) (mpw)
r-~-~
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU T
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
DIANE MciNTYRE,
MAR 2 0 2018
I ~rLr, ~;,;, c~-1J,S ••
I
§
§
Plaintiff,
I
·~
•• ,L,
Deu~•tv
-~~-,.-,...~~=~·~~·=~~--~·-\~- _.:~~--- ------ ----
§
§
vs.
§
BEN E, KEITH COMPANY,
§
NO. 4:18-CV-203-A
§
§
Defendant.
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Came on for consideration the above-captioned action wherein
Diane Mcintyre is plaintiff and Ben E. Keith Company is named as
defendant. The court notes that the complaint in this action is
virtually identical to one filed by plaintiff in this court under
Case No. 4:16-CV-1134-A, except that plaintiff is now asserting
that the same facts support a cause of action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
§§
201-19 ("FLSA")
instead of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§§
2000e to
2000e-17. Because the claims in plaintiff's prior action were
dismissed with prejudice, the claims asserted here are clearly
barred by res judicata.
I.
Plaintiff's Claims
Plaintiff alleges: She worked as a back haul driver for
defendant from June 2014 until she was terminated on March 14,
2016. Defendant routinely permitted her to work more than forty
- --
hours per week. When she complained about her hours exceeding
those of comparable co-workers, her supervisor retaliated against
her by deducting plaintiff's paychecks, attempting to justify his
actions as a disciplinary measure. Plaintiff further complained
and was told that her demands were unreasonable and
insubordinate, even though plaintiff merely requested written
policies and procedures that authorized deductions from her pay.
Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of her right to
overtime pay and for retaliation for pursuing her rights under
the FLSA.
II.
Applicable Legal Standards
Dismissal under Rule 12(b) (6) on res judicata grounds is
appropriate when the elements of res judicata are apparent on the
face of the pleadings. Dean v. Mississippi Bd. of Bar Admissions,
394 F. App'x 172, 175 (5th Cir. 2010). In addition, the court may
take judicial notice of the record in a prior related proceeding
over which it presided, and may dismiss a complaint sua sponte
under principles of res judicata.
U.S. 392, 412
(2000)
Arizona v. California, 530
(" [I)f a court is on notice that it has
previously decided the issue presented, the court may dismiss the
action sua sponte, even though the defense has not been
raised.").
2
III.
Analysis
The court concludes that it is readily apparent from the
face of the complaint that the elements of res judicata are met,
and that this action must be dismissed.
Under Fifth Circuit law, "res judicata is the •venerable
legal canon' that insures the finality of judgments and thereby
conserves judicial resources and protects litigants from multiple
lawsuits.
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 376 F.3d 496, 499
(5th Cir. 2004)
(quoting United States v. Shanbaum, 10 F.3d 305,
310 (5th Cir. 1994)).
The doctrine precludes the relitigation of
claims which have been fully adjudicated or arise from the same
subject matter, and that could have been litigated in the prior
action.
Nilsen v. City of Moss Point, 701 F.2d 556, 561 (5th
Cir. 1983).
Under res judicata, a prior judgment bars a
subsequent judgment when (1) the parties are identical or in
privity;
(2) the judgment in the prior action was rendered by a
court of competent jurisdiction;
(3) the prior action was
concluded by a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the same
claim or cause of action was involved in both actions.
Test
Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 571 (5th Cir.
2005).
3
In determining whether the same claims or causes of action
are brought, the Fifth Circuit has adopted the transactional
test,
in which all claims arising from a "common nucleus of
operative facts" and could have been brought in the first
lawsuit, are barred by res judicata.
at 499.
Procter & Gamble, 376 F.3d
In Nilsen, the court explained:
[I]t is black-letter law that res judicata, by contrast
to narrower doctrines of issue preclusion, bars all
claims that were or could have been advanced in support
of the cause of action on the occasion of its former
adjudication
. not merely those that were
adjudicated.
Nilson,
701 F.2d at 560 (emphasis in original).
See also Petro-
Hunt, L.L.C. v. United States, 365 F.3d 385, 395-96 (5th Cir.
2004)
(prior judgment's preclusive effect extends to all rights
of plaintiff "with respect to all or any part of the transaction,
or series of connected transactions, out of which the [original]
action arose."); Howe v. Vaughan (In re Howe),
1144
(5th Cir. 1990)
913 F.2d 1138,
(" [T]he critical issue is not the relief
requested or the theory asserted but whether plaintiff bases the
two actions on the same nucleus of operative facts.").
In this case, all four elements of res judicata are met.
First, the same plaintiff has brought an action against the same
defendant in both lawsuits.
Second, the judgment in the prior
action, No. 4:16-CV-1134-A, was rendered by this court, which is
4
a court of competent jurisdiction.
Third, the prior action was
concluded by a final judgment on the merits, as all claims and
causes of action in the prior action were dismissed with
prejudice. Fourth, the claims and causes of action raised by
plaintiff in both actions were related to plaintiff's employment
by defendant and complaints about being treated unfairly and
ultimately terminated.
Thus, all of plaintiff's claims in the
instant action could have been brought in the prior action, and
must be dismissed. Warren v. Mortgage Elec. Registration Sys.,
Inc., 616 F. App'x 735, 737-38
(5th Cir.
2015).
IV.
Order
The court ORDERS that plaintiff's claims in this action be,
and are hereby, dismissed with prejudice.
SIGNED March 20, 2018.
Judge
5
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?