Ruiz v. Snohomish Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1,
Decision Date | 08 June 2016 |
Docket Number | No. 14-35030,14-35030 |
Citation | 824 F.3d 1161 |
Parties | Kim Milless Ruiz, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1, a local government entity; Jim Little, individually and in his official capacity, Defendants–Appellees. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Michael A. Jacobson (argued), Michael A. Jacobson, PS Inc., Seattle, Washington, for Plaintiff–Appellant.
Christopher M. Huck (argued), Michael A. Goldfarb, and R. Omar Riojas, Kelley, Goldfarb, Huck & Roth, PLLC, Seattle, Washington, for Defendants–Appellees.
Before: Susan P. Graber, Marsha S. Berzon, and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Kim Milless Ruiz worked for Defendant Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1 (“the District”) from 1998 until her termination in 2010. In 2011, she sued Defendant Jim Little, the Executive Director of Employee Relations at the District, alleging sex discrimination for acts that had occurred in 2008. But, as Plaintiff conceded, she failed to effect service on Little. The district court dismissed that action “with prejudice” on two grounds: lack of personal jurisdiction and untimeliness.
In 2013, Plaintiff brought the present action against both Defendants, alleging sex discrimination claims, under state and federal law, stemming in part from her termination in 2010. The district court held that the earlier dismissal was res judicata and that, accordingly, it barred this action. Plaintiff timely appeals. Reviewing de novo, Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp , 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002), we hold—consistent with the Restatement (Second) of Judgments and at least three sister circuits—that an earlier dismissal on alternative grounds, where one ground is a lack of jurisdiction, is not res judicata. Res judicata therefore does not bar this action. Because dismissal of some of Plaintiff's claims nevertheless was proper on other grounds, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Because this appeal challenges the grant of a motion to dismiss, we accept as true all facts alleged in the complaint. Daniels–Hall v. Nat'l Educ. Ass'n , 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010). Plaintiff worked for the District from 1998 to 2010. The District fired her on June 10, 2010, acting on false assertions made against Plaintiff by Defendant Little. Male co-workers who engaged in conduct similar to Plaintiff's purported conduct were not disciplined.
In 2011, acting pro se, Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant Little in state court. Plaintiff alleged that, in 2008, Defendant Little filed a false disciplinary report against her. The complaint did not mention the 2010 firing.
Defendant Little removed the case to federal court in 2012, expressly noting that he did not waive any defenses, including sufficiency of service. He then filed a motion to dismiss that asserted a lack of personal jurisdiction, because Plaintiff failed to serve him properly, and untimeliness. In the timeliness section, Defendant Little explained that, had Plaintiff served him properly, the claim would have been timely because it was filed within three years of the 2008 false disciplinary report. But the complaint was untimely under Washington law, according to Defendant Little, because Plaintiff's service was deficient, and an improperly served complaint neither constitutes the commencement of an action nor tolls the statute of limitations.
Plaintiff then filed two motions: (1) a motion for extension of time to respond to the motion to dismiss and (2) a motion for voluntary dismissal. The motion for an extension of time stated that “Plaintiff cannot answer the issues of the defendant['s] motion to dismiss without hiring a counsel” because Defendant's motion “is complex and plaintiff is not legally trained for civil rights law.” The motion for voluntary dismissal stated that Plaintiff
Defendant Little filed a response to both motions, each stating that Defendant did not oppose dismissal but arguing that the dismissal should be with prejudice because of the untimeliness of the action. Three weeks later, the district court dismissed the action with prejudice, stating in full:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal. (Dkt. No. 9.) Defendant does not oppose dismissal, and requests that the dismissal be with prejudice. (Dkt. No. 12.) Plaintiff does not object. The motion is GRANTED. Because Plaintiff concedes that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant and that the claims are barred by the statute of limitations, this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Plaintiff did not appeal that 2012 dismissal.
On June 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed this action in state court against Little and the District, asserting sex-discrimination claims under the Washington Law Against Discrimination and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants removed the case to federal court. Defendants then moved to dismiss the action on three grounds: (1) res judicata or claim preclusion; (2) untimeliness; and (3) failure to state a claim. The district court held that res judicata bars the action, dismissed the case for that reason, and expressly declined to reach Defendants' other two arguments. Plaintiff timely appeals.
“The preclusive effect of a federal-court judgment is determined by federal common law.” Taylor v. Sturgell , 553 U.S. 880, 891, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008). “Res judicata applies when there is: (1) an identity of claims; (2) a final judgment on the merits; and (3) identity or privity between parties.” Stewart , 297 F.3d at 956 (internal quotation marks omitted). We consider whether the 2012 dismissal was “a final judgment on the merits.”
The 2012 dismissal rested on two grounds: lack of personal jurisdiction and untimeliness. Considered separately, those reasons have opposite claim-preclusive effects. A “dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is a judgment on the merits” that operates as res judicata. Tahoe–Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency , 322 F.3d 1064, 1081 (9th Cir. 2003). By contrast, a dismissal for want of personal jurisdiction is not a judgment “on the merits” for the purpose of res judicata. See, e.g. , Phillips Petro. Co. v. Shutts , 472 U.S. 797, 805, 105 S.Ct. 2965, 86 L.Ed.2d 628 (1985) (); Martin v. N.Y. State Dep't of Mental Hygiene , 588 F.2d 371, 373 n.3 (2d Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (); Restatement (Second) of Judgments (“Restatement”) § 20(1) (1982) (); accord 18A Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction (“Federal Practice ”) § 4436, at 154, 168–70 (2d ed. 2002).
We have not decided the res judicata effect of an order—like the one at issue here—that contains two holdings, one “on the merits” and the other not “on the merits.” But the Restatement and at least one sister circuit have concluded that, in those circumstances, the earlier judgment is not res judicata because it was not “on the merits.” See Restatement § 20 cmt. e () ; Pizlo v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. , 884 F.2d 116, 119 (4th Cir. 1989) ().
Two related reasons are commonly given for the rule. First, the “on the merits” determination “may not have been as carefully or rigorously considered as it would have if it had been necessary to the result, and in that sense it has some of the characteristics of dicta.” Restatement § 20 cmt. e. Second, Id.
This case nicely illustrates both points. Plaintiff declined to brief the timeliness issue because of its complexity and, instead, requested additional time to hire a lawyer with “civil rights law expertise.” The district court's order provided no analysis on the timeliness issue, and the court apparently never ruled on the request for additional time. The court's determination on the timeliness issue “may not have been as carefully or rigorously considered as it would have if it had been necessary to the result.”1 Restatement § 20 cmt. e.
Defendants assert that Plaintiff could have appealed the 2012 dismissal to challenge the timeliness ruling. But we agree with the Restatement that “[t]he rules of res judicata should not encourage or foster appeals” in these circumstances. Id. It would be an inefficient use of judicial resources to encourage litigants to appeal judgments for the sole purpose of preserving their ability to potentially bring the same claims again, in a hypothetical future action. That concern would be heightened where the “on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Amina v. WMC Fin. Co.
...an identity of claims; (2) a final judgment on the merits; and (3) identity or privity between parties. Ruiz v. Snohomish Co. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 , 824 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2016) (quotation and citation omitted).A court is to apply four criteria to decide whether there is an identit......
-
Johnson v. Spencer
...that substantive issues inherent in a § 1983 claim were not the focus of the state hearing"); see also Ruiz v. Snohomish Cty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 , 824 F.3d 1161, 1167 (9th Cir. 2016) (reviewing the record of a prior proceeding to interpret the court’s "ambiguous prior judgment" for purp......
-
King v. Export Dev. Can. (In re Zetta Jet USA, Inc.)
...by allowing the Court to give its own decision preclusive effect. Opposition at 36-37 (citing Ruiz v. Snohomish Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 824 F.3d 1161, 1168 (9th Cir. 2016) ; Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491, 513 n.9, 128 S.Ct. 1346, 170 L.Ed.2d 190 (2008) ; Battle Ground Plaza, LLC v. ......
-
Schertzer v. Bank of Am., N.A.
...judgment rendered by a court that lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant is void. Ruiz v. Snohomish Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 , 824 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2016). Thus, a court's power to exercise jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant is limited by two independent constraint......