Manning v. City of Auburn, 91-7301
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
| Citation | 953 F.2d 1355 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-7301,91-7301 |
| Parties | 58 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,330, 21 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1361 Delilah MANNING, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF AUBURN, A Municipal Corporation; Jan M. Dempsey, Mayor of the City of Auburn; Douglas J. Watson, City Manager of the City of Auburn; Ron Tejeda, Personnel Manager for the City of Auburn; The City of Auburn Fire Department; Clyde Prather, Public Safety Director of the City of Auburn; Steve Woodall, Fire Chief of the City of Auburn; The City Counsel of the City of Auburn; Robert Gastaldo; Samuel Harris; Mary Fortenberry; Sam Teague; Lamar Sellers; Frances W. Hale; W.G. Trey Johnson and Bill Ham, Jr., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 19 February 1992 |
Page 1355
v.
The CITY OF AUBURN, A Municipal Corporation; Jan M.
Dempsey, Mayor of the City of Auburn; Douglas J. Watson,
City Manager of the City of Auburn; Ron Tejeda, Personnel
Manager for the City of Auburn; The City of Auburn Fire
Department; Clyde Prather, Public Safety Director of the
City of Auburn; Steve Woodall, Fire Chief of the City of
Auburn; The City Counsel of the City of Auburn; Robert
Gastaldo; Samuel Harris; Mary Fortenberry; Sam Teague;
Lamar Sellers; Frances W. Hale; W.G. Trey Johnson and Bill
Ham, Jr., Defendants-Appellees.
Eleventh Circuit.
Page 1357
T. Dudley Perry, Jr., Perry & Perry, Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.
Arnold Umbach, Walker, Hill, Adams, Umbach & Meadows, Robert T. Meadows, III, Opelika, Ala., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.
Before KRAVITCH and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and HENDERSON, Senior Circuit Judge.
EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge:
The district court dismissed, on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds, Delilah Manning's employment discrimination suit. We vacate the district court's judgment and remand the case for further proceedings in the district court. 1
In July 1987, the City of Auburn, Alabama, and a number of its officials were the subject of a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all past, present and future employees of the City's Fire Department. 2 Hammock v. City of Auburn, No. 87-V-680-E (M.D.Ala.1988). The Hammock complaint alleged a continuing pattern and practice of discrimination arising from City Fire Chief Ellis Mitchell's policy of favoritism within the fire department, discrimination tacitly approved by the other defendants. Plaintiffs claimed they had been deprived of equal protection and due process rights at the whim of Chief Mitchell. 3 Upon class certification, class members were notified and given the opportunity to "opt out." Delilah Manning, plaintiff in this case, and unnamed member of the plaintiff class in Hammock, did not opt out.
The Hammock defendants then submitted interrogatories to all class members to determine if individual damages were due. Although the class notification letter stated that no action was necessary to remain a member of the plaintiff class, the district court instructed class members to respond to the individual discovery requests on pain of dismissal.
Manning never answered the interrogatories. As one of Chief Mitchell's favorites, she was a beneficiary of the discrimination alleged by class representatives; she had no personal damages to claim. In August 1988, Manning was dismissed from the suit with prejudice, along with twenty-three other persons who did not respond to the interrogatories. In November 1988, the district court entered a settlement order awarding both class-wide injunctive relief and individual damages to the remaining Hammock plaintiffs.
In August 1990, Manning filed her own discrimination suit claiming that starting July 1987, around the time that Chief Mitchell was ousted and Hammock was filed, the City and city officials began to deny her employment entitlements on the
Page 1358
basis of sex and age. 4 The district court concluded that the orders and final judgment in Hammock barred Manning's claims against the city and dismissed Manning's case with prejudice.A district court's conclusions on res judicata and collateral estoppel are conclusions of law, reviewable de novo by this Court. Richardson v. Alabama State Bd. of Educ., 935 F.2d 1240, 1244 (11th Cir.1991). Res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars relitigation of matters that were litigated or could have been litigated in an earlier suit. Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110, 130, 103 S.Ct. 2906, 2918, 77 L.Ed.2d 509 (1983). Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, "recognizes that suits addressed to particular claims may present issues relevant to suits on other claims," Kaspar Wire Works, Inc. v. Leco Engineering and Mach., Inc., 575 F.2d 530, 535 (5th Cir.1978), 5 and requires that the identical issue in question was actually litigated and necessary to the judgment of an earlier suit. Hart v. Yamaha-Parts Distrib., Inc., 787 F.2d 1468, 1473 (11th Cir.1986). Although the district court spoke of preclusion based on "res judicata or collateral estoppel" (emphasis added), Manning's individual claims were never litigated or even raised in Hammock; 6 so we confine our discussion to res judicata and determining whether she could have brought these claims in the earlier action. 7
Federal courts apply state law to questions of res judicata. NAACP v. Hunt, 891 F.2d 1555, 1560 (11th Cir.1990). In the state of Alabama, four elements are necessary for the doctrine's application:
(1) a final judgment on the merits,
(2) rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction,
(3) with substantial identity of parties, and
(4) with the same cause of action presented in both suits.
Id. (quoting Hughes v. Allenstein, 514 So.2d 858 (Ala.1987)); Hart, 787 F.2d at 1470. If even one of these elements is missing, res judicata is inapplicable. Hunt, 891 F.2d at 1560. The res judicata argument ultimately fails in this case because the cause of action is not the same.
In this circuit, the determination of whether the causes of action in two proceedings are the same is governed by whether the primary right and duty are the same. Hunt, 891 F.2d at 1561 (quoting Kemp v. Birmingham News Co., 608 F.2d 1049, 1052 (5th Cir.1979)); I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat'l Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1549 (11th Cir.1986). The test is one of substance, not form. I.A. Durbin, 793 F.2d at 1549. Res judicata applies "not only to the precise legal theory presented in the previous litigation, but to all legal
Page 1359
theories...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGuire v. Marshall
...first and second suits, there has been a[ ] ... modification of significant facts creating new legal conditions." Manning v. Auburn , 953 F.2d 1355, 1359 (11th Cir. 1992) (alteration in original) (quoting Jaffree v. Wallace , 837 F.2d 1461, 1468 (11th Cir. 1988) ). Res judicata "turns prima......
-
High Sierra Hikers Ass'n v. Powell
...the original complaint was filed. See Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 15(d); Keith v. Volpe, 858 F.2d 467, 476 (9th Cir.1988); Manning v. City of Auburn, 953 F.2d 1355, 1359-60 (11th Cir. 1992). The Court also ordered supplementation of the administrative record to to the new SUPs. In addition, the Court p......
-
Gadsden Indus. Park, LLC v. United States, Case No. 4:15-cv-0956-JEO
...necessary to the judgment in the prior suit. See Baloco v. Drummond Co., 767 F.3d 1229, 1251 (11th Cir. 2014); Manning v. City of Auburn, 953 F.2d 1355, 1358 (11th Cir. 1992); Dairyland Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 566 So. 2d 723, 726 (Ala. 1990). In support of its preclusion argument, GIP points t......
-
Waddekk & Reed Financial, Inc. V. Torchmark Corp.
...to amend its pleadings to assert claims that arise after the filing of its initial complaint or counterclaim. See Manning v. City of Auburn, 953 F.2d 1355, 1360 (11th Cir.1992); see also Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Edward H. Cooper, 18 Federal Practice & Procedure: Juris 2d § 440......