Fonseca v. Columbia Gas Systems, Inc., 97-CV-270A.
| Decision Date | 17 September 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-CV-270A.,97-CV-270A. |
| Parties | John J. FONSECA, Plaintiff, v. COLUMBIA GAS SYSTEMS, INC., New York State Electric & Gas Corp., Olean Medical Group, Travelers Insurance Co., Aetna Life & Casualty Co., Buffalo General Hospital, and New York State Workers' Compensation Board, New York State Department of Labor, Local Union IBEW No. 106, Hornell Local Union IBEW No. 1126, Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
John J. Fonseca, Olean, NY, pro se.
Elizabeth Ann Wolford, Wolford & Leclair LLP, Rochester, NY, for defendant Columbia Gas Sysytems, Inc.
James S. Gleason, Hinman, Howard & Kattell, LLP, Binghamtion, NY, for defendant New York Elec. & Gas Corp.
Marylou Kathryn Roshia, Damon & Morey, Buffalo, NY, for defendant Olean Medical Group.
John Wallace, Quackenbush, Cessario & Hamlin, Buffalo, NY, for defendant Travellers Ins. Co.
Cheryl Smith Fisher, Magavern, Magavern & Grimm, Buffalo, NY, for defendant Buffalo General Hosp.
Claire T. O'Keefe, New York State Department of Law, New York, NY, for defendant New York State Workers' Comp. Bd.
Steven A. Segall, NYS Dept. of Law, Labor Bureau, New York, NY, for defendant New York State Dept. of Labor.
John K. Plumb, Beckstrom & Plumb, Jamestown, NY, for defendant Local Union IBEW No. 106.
Jane B. Wolfe, United States Attorney, Buffalo, NY, for defendant John J. Callahan.
This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Carol E. Heckman pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), on April 6, 1998. Defendants filed motions to dismiss, for summary judgment, or for a more definite statement. Defendant Olean Medical Group also filed a motion to set aside entry of default. In addition, defendants New York State Electric & Gas Corp. ("NYSEG"), Hornell Local Union IBEW No. 1126 ("Hornell Local No. 1126"), Columbia Gas Systems, Inc. ("Columbia Gas"), and Aetna Life Insurance Co. ("Aetna") moved for sanctions against plaintiff under Fed. R.Civ.P. 11.
On August 10, 1998, Magistrate Judge Heckman filed a Decision and Order and Report and Recommendation which: (1) recommended that defendants' motions to dismiss be granted on grounds of res judicata, a prior release, sovereign immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity, and that the complaint be dismissed as to all defendants; (2) denied defendants' motion for a more definite statement as moot; (3) granted defendant Olean Medical Group's motion to set aside entry of default; and (4) denied the motion for sanctions against plaintiff.
On August 24, 1998, defendant NYSEG filed objections to the Magistrate's Decision and Order and Report and Recommendation, arguing that the Magistrate Judge erred: (1) in not imposing sanctions against plaintiff under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11; and (2) in concluding that the complaint was timely filed. Defendants Columbia Gas, Aetna, and Hornell Local No. 1126 joined in NYSEG's objections via letters.
On August 25, 1998, plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Decision and Order and Report and Recommendation. Defendants Local Union IBEW 106, Commissioner of Social Security and Olean Medical Group filed replies to plaintiff's objections.
Defendants NYSEG, Columbia Gas, Aetna and Hornell Local No. 1126 object to the Magistrate Judge's Decision and Order denying their motion for sanctions. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), this Court may reverse the Magistrate Judge's determination on a non-dispositive motion, such as a motion for sanctions, only if "it has been shown that the magistrate's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law." Id. The Court has carefully reviewed the submissions of the parties and Magistrate Judge Heckman's Decision and Order, and finds that it is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Accordingly, the Court denies defendants' objections to the denial of their motion for sanctions.
The Court certainly understands the frustration of the defendants, but under the facts and circumstances present here, sanctions are not warranted at this time. Nevertheless, the Court warns plaintiff that if he files any future actions against these same defendants and such actions assert those same claims that have been dismissed in this case and/or in previous cases, he may be subject to monetary and equitable sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11.
It is not clear from plaintiffs papers whether he is objecting to that portion of the Magistrate Judge's Decision and Order granting defendant Olean Medical Group's motion to set aside entry of default. If he is objecting to that part of the Decision and Order, his objection is denied as the Magistrate Judge's Order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law.
Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the Court grant defendants' motions to dismiss the case. Although plaintiff's objections are rather lengthy, rambling and difficult to understand, he appears to be simply rehashing arguments that he has already made many times before.
Defendants NYSEG, Columbia Gas, Aetna, and Hornell Local No. 1126 object to that portion of the Report and Recommendation where the Magistrate Judge concluded that the complaint was timely filed.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. Upon a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, and after reviewing the submissions of the parties, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's findings that the case should be dismissed on grounds of res judicata, a prior release, sovereign immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity. The Court does not adopt, however, the Magistrate Judge's finding that the action was timely filed. The Court need not decide that issue in light of its adoption of the remainder of the Report and Recommendation.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Heckman's Report and Recommendation, defendants' motions to dismiss or for summary judgment are granted and the complaint dismissed as to all defendants.1 The Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and take all steps necessary to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DECISION AND ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter was referred to the undersigned by the Hon. Richard J. Arcara for all pretrial matters and to hear and report on dispositive motions, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). Defendants have filed motions to dismiss, for summary judgment, or for a more definite statement. Defendant Olean Medical Group has also filed a motion to set aside entry of default, and defendant New York State Electric & Gas ("NYSEG") has filed a motion for sanctions against plaintiff. For the reasons that follow, it is recommended that defendants' motions to dismiss or for summary judgment be granted. Defendant Olean Medical Group's motion to set aside entry of default is granted. Defendant NYSEG's motion for sanctions is denied.
On April 10, 1997, plaintiff filed the complaint pro se in this action alleging a conspiracy to violate his civil rights and to deny him long-term disability benefits (Item 1). He also lists five previous lawsuits in state and federal court dealing with the same facts involved in this action, as follows:
1. Fonseca v. Columbia Gas of New York, 82-CV-992M (W.D.N.Y).
In October, 1982, plaintiff brought an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., against his employer, Columbia Gas of New York, Inc. He alleged that Columbia Gas discriminated against him on the basis of his national origin because he was being paid a lower wage at his position of job operations clerk than his predecessor had been paid . On September 13, 1983, a non-jury trial was held before United States Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Maxwell, on consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Judge Maxwell found that the previous job operations clerk maintained a higher rate of pay based on his years of service, and found no evidence that the difference in compensation was otherwise discriminatory (id., Ex. B). On October 14, 1983, Judge Maxwell entered an order dismissing the complaint and entering judgment in favor of Columbia Gas (id.). Plaintiff appealed, and on August 31, 1984, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment without opinion. Fonseca v. Columbia Gas of New York, Inc., 751 F.2d 368 (2d Cir.1984).
2. Fonseca v. Columbia Gas of N.Y., Inc., 90-CV-1034A (W.D.N.Y.).
On October 2, 1990, plaintiff again sued Columbia Gas1 under Title VII alleging employment discrimination based on national origin. He claimed that, in retaliation for filing his earlier lawsuit, Columbia Gas failed to promote him, withheld information about job opportunities, and delayed his long-term disability benefits relative to a work-related injury which he suffered in October, 1986 (see Item 34, Exs. C, D). On February 8, 1994, Judge Arcara issued a decision and order dismissing plaintiff's Title VII claim as untimely, and allowing plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint to assert a claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, for discriminatory denial of promotion (id., Ex. F). In October, 1994, plaintiff entered a "Full Release and Settlement Agreement" with Columbia Gas, settling the case .2 On October 7, 1994, Judge Arcara issued an order dismissing the action with prejudice and without costs, based on the confidential settlement agreement (Item 34, Ex. E).
3. In the Matter of the Claim of John J. Fonseca, 201 A.D.2d 818, 607...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Phipps v. New York State Dept. of Labor
...Mascheroni v. Board of Regents of the Univ. of California, 28 F.3d 1554, 1557-60 (10th Cir. 1994)); see also Fonseca v. Columbia Gas Sys., Inc., 37 F.Supp.2d 214, 230 (W.D.N.Y.1998); Percesepe v. New York State Dep't of Labor, 1996 WL 1057165, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Dec.12, 1996), aff'd, 125 F.3d ......
-
De Pace v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of America
...interpose release as bar to suit, provided employee acted in justifiable reliance upon misrepresentation); Fonseca v. Columbia Gas Systems, Inc., 37 F.Supp.2d 214, 229 (W.D.N.Y.1998) ("In general, a release which has been procured through fraud, misrepresentation, or deceit is not a bar to ......
-
Marshall Caro & Indii.Com United Statese, LLC v. Fid. Brokerage Servs., 3:14-CV-01028 (CSH)
...con-conspirators to preclude Discon from proceeding against NYNEX in a second, separate action"); Fonseca v. Columbia Gas Sys., Inc., 37 F. Supp. 2d 214, 228 (W.D.N.Y. 1998) ("I find that a sufficiently close relationship existed between the alleged coconspirators to preclude plaintiff from......
-
Discon Inc. v. Nynex Corp., 90-CV-546A.
...conclusion that the relationship between the parties is sufficiently close to warrant claim preclusion. See Fonseca v. Columbia Gas Sys., Inc., 37 F.Supp.2d 214, 227 (W.D.N.Y.1998). Courts have held that alleged co-conspirators are "in privity" with one another for res judicata purposes. Se......