Simmons v. Trans Express Inc.

• Decision Date: 26 October 2021
• Docket Number: August Term 2019,No. 19-438,19-438
• Citation: 16 F.4th 357
• Parties: Charlene SIMMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANS EXPRESS INC., Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

16 F.4th 357

Charlene SIMMONS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.TRANS EXPRESS INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 19-438

August Term 2019

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued: January 17, 2020

Certified to New York Court of Appeals: April 13, 2020

Decided: October 26, 2021

Abdul K. Hassan, Abdul Hassan Law Group, PLLC, Queens Village, New York, for Plaintiff-Appellant Charlene Simmons.

Emory D. Moore, Jr. (P. Kevin Connelly, on the briefs), McDermott Will & Emery LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Defendant-Appellee Trans Express Inc.

Before: Sullivan and Bianco, Circuit Judges.^*

Richard J. Sullivan, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-Appellant Charlene Simmons sued Defendant-Appellee Trans Express Inc. under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. , and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), alleging that she was entitled to unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees. Because Simmons had already won a judgment against Trans Express in Queens Small Claims Court, the district court dismissed her subsequent federal action, concluding that it was barred as a matter of state law under the doctrine of res judicata (alternatively known as claim preclusion). We certified to the New York Court of Appeals the question of what preclusive effect a judgment of the small claims court has on a subsequent wage-and-hour action. Simmons v. Trans Express Inc. (Simmons I ), 955 F.3d 325, 331 (2d Cir. 2020). The Court of Appeals graciously accepted certification, Simmons v. Trans Express Inc. , 35 N.Y.3d 966, 124 N.Y.S.3d 627, 147 N.E.3d 1164 (2020), and advised us that small claims court judgments carry "the traditional res judicata or claim preclusive effect," Simmons v. Trans Express Inc. (Simmons II ), 37 N.Y.3d 107, 110, 148 N.Y.S.3d 178, 170 N.E.3d 733 (2021). With the benefit of the Court of Appeals’ decision, we conclude that, under New York's law of claim preclusion, Simmons's suit is barred because of her prior small claims court action. We also reject Simmons's contention that the FLSA and/or NYLL bar the application of claim preclusion to those causes of action. Thus, we affirm the district court's dismissal of this case.

I. BACKGROUND

The facts and initial procedural history of this case are set forth in our first opinion in this appeal, so we recount them only as relevant here. See Simmons I , 955 F.3d at 326–28. Simmons brought suit against Trans Express in Queens Small Claims Court in August 2018, seeking "monies arising out of nonpayment of wages." App'x at 18 (capitalization altered). The small claims court awarded Simmons a $1,000 judgment and a $20 disbursement to cover her out-of-pocket expenses.

On October 24, 2018, Simmons filed the instant federal action, alleging her entitlement to unpaid overtime wages and to additional compensation because Trans Express failed to furnish her with certain notices of her rights, as required by the NYLL. Citing the preclusive effect of the small claims court judgment, the district court dismissed Simmons's subsequent federal complaint. Simmons raised several arguments on appeal, principally contending that New York City Civil Court Act § 1808 (" Section 1808"), which governs the preclusive effect of judgments rendered by a small claims court, provides that such judgments are non-preclusive. Section 1808 provides:

A judgment obtained under this article shall not be deemed an adjudication of any fact at issue or found therein in any other action or court; except that a subsequent judgment obtained in another action or court involving the same facts, issues and parties shall be reduced by the amount of a judgment awarded under this article.

N.Y. City Civ. Ct. Act § 1808. Because the Court of Appeals had yet to interpret Section 1808, and the Appellate Division had issued conflicting decisions on the scope of Section 1808 "that agree[d] that small claims court judgments have some preclusive effect," but "differ[ed] as to the contours of that effect," Simmons I , 955 F.3d at 329 (emphasis removed), we certified the following question to the New York Court of Appeals:

Under New York City Civil Court Act § 1808, what issue preclusion, claim preclusion, and/or res judicata effects, if any, does a small claims court's prior judgment have on subsequent actions brought in other courts involving the same facts, issues, and/or parties? In particular, where a small claims court has rendered a judgment on a claim, does Section 1808 preclude a subsequent action involving a claim arising from the same transaction, occurrence, or employment relationship?

Id. at 331.

The New York Court of Appeals accepted certification and ultimately held that although "[S]ection 1808 abrogates ... the common-law issue preclusive effect of small claims judgments," ordinary rules of claim preclusion apply to the judgments of the small claims court. Simmons II , 37 N.Y.3d at 114–15 & 115 n.3, 148 N.Y.S.3d 178, 170 N.E.3d 733 (explaining that Section 1808 does not "replace traditional claim preclusion analysis with a narrower form of the doctrine"). The Court of Appeals then left to us "the question of whether the federal claims brought by [Simmons] are precluded by the prior small claims judgment" in this case. Id. at 115, 148 N.Y.S.3d 178, 170 N.E.3d 733.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the dismissal of a complaint and the application of claim preclusion de novo . Simmons I , 955 F.3d at 328 (quoting TechnoMarine SA v. Giftports, Inc. , 758 F.3d 493, 498 (2d Cir. 2014) ).

III. DISCUSSION

"Under the doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, ‘[a] final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.’ " St. Pierre v. Dyer , 208 F.3d 394, 399 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Moitie , 452 U.S. 394, 398, 101 S.Ct. 2424, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981) ). New York law determines the preclusive effect of the judgment of the small claims court. See Migra v. Warren Cty. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. , 465 U.S. 75, 81, 104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984) ("[A] federal court must give to a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment under the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered."). New York employs a "transactional" approach to claim preclusion, under which "the claim preclusion rule extends beyond attempts to relitigate identical claims ... [to] all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions ." Simmons II , 37 N.Y.3d at 111, 148 N.Y.S.3d 178, 170 N.E.3d 733 (quoting O'Brien v. City of Syracuse , 54 N.Y.2d 353, 357, 445 N.Y.S.2d 687, 429 N.E.2d 1158 (1981) ). In assessing whether claims arise out of the "same transaction or series of transactions," New York courts "analyze whether the claims turn on facts that ‘are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties’ expectations or business understanding or usage.’ " Id. (quoting Xiao Yang Chen v. Fischer , 6 N.Y.3d 94, 100–01, 810 N.Y.S.2d 96, 843 N.E.2d 723 (2005) ).

Before conducting the transactional analysis, however, we first address a threshold issue concerning whether the district court prematurely dismissed Simmons's complaint. Simmons argues that claim preclusion is an affirmative defense that may not form the basis for dismissal on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion unless all the elements of the defense are apparent from the face of the pleading. But "in ruling on a 12(b) motion to dismiss," the district court was also permitted to "consider matters of which judicial notice may be taken." Staehr v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Grp., Inc. , 547 F.3d 406, 425 (2d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). This includes the summons and the judgment sheet in Simmons's prior small claims case. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rotches Pork Packers, Inc. , 969 F.2d 1384, 1388 (2d Cir. 1992) ("A court may take judicial notice of a document filed in another court ... to establish the fact of such litigation and related filings.") (citation omitted); Chrzanowski v. Lichtman , 884 F. Supp. 751, 756 (W.D.N.Y. 1995) (taking "judicial notice of the application and judgment in [Buffalo's] Small Claims Court"). The district court properly took judicial notice of documents indicating the claims Simmons brought in small claims court, the remedies she sought, and the judgment she was awarded. As we explain, these documents provide sufficient basis for the district court's judgment granting the motion to dismiss.

A. The "Transactional" Approach

Applying the principles of New York's transactional approach, we hold that Simmons's federal claims arise out of the same transaction as her small claims court suit and thus are barred. Simmons's federal complaint alleges that she is entitled to unpaid overtime wages. Her small claims suit raised substantially identical claims. Though Simmons attempts on appeal to recharacterize her small claims court suit as one for wrongful termination, the record belies that argument. The small claims court summons served on Trans Express advised that Simmons sought "to recover monies arising out of nonpayment of wages." App'x at 18 (capitalization altered). And the small claims court judgment awarded her $1,020 for "unpd. OT," obviously a notation for unpaid overtime. App'x at 20. Simmons's federal complaint seeks essentially the same relief, demanding damages in the form of "unpaid overtime compensation." App'x at 9. The claims in Simmons's two suits obviously "turn on facts that are related in time, space, origin, or motivation," Simmons II , 37 N.Y.3d at 111–12, 148 N.Y.S.3d 178, 170 N.E.3d 733 (citation and quotation marks omitted), since both seek damages for nonpayment of overtime wages that she alleges her employer Trans Express withheld from her during the course of her employment.

But even if we were to indulge Simmons's recharacterization of her small claims court...