Valentin-Velez et al v. Potter et al, No. 3:2010cv01358 - Document 13 (D.P.R. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER. GRANTED 11 Motion to Dismiss. As per the attached OPINION and ORDER, res judicata bars plaintiffs' suit. Signed by Judge Salvador E. Casellas on 3/25/11. (PR)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Valentin-Velez et al v. Potter et al Doc. 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 1 2 3 SANDY VALENTIN-VELEZ, et al. Plaintiffs, 4 5 6 7 v. Civil No. 10-1358 (SEC) U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, et al. Defendants. 8 9 10 11 OPINION and ORDER Before the Court is the above-captioned defendants unopposed motion to dismiss. Docket # 11. After reviewing the record and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS their motion. 12 Background 13 On April 30, 2010, plaintiffs Sandy Valentin-Velez, his wife Maribel Lopez, and their 14 conjugal partnership (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed this pro se suit under Title VII of the Civil 15 Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the United States’ Constitution. Docket 16 # 1. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Valentin-Velez was terminated from his employment at 17 18 the U.S. Postal Service because of discrimination based on disability. Id. Defendants are the U.S. Postal Service, its Post Master John E. Potter, and Valentin-Velez’s direct supervisors, Luis Cabrera and Efrain Sanchez (collectively “Defendants”). Id. After receiving service of 19 process, Defendants immediately moved to dismiss the complaint, stating that Plaintiffs have 20 21 filed suit in 2002 for the same facts, against the same parties, and under the same legal theories. Docket # 11, citing Civ. Case No. 02-2634, Laffitte, J., presiding. According to Defendants, 22 Plaintiffs’ previous suit was summarily dismissed with prejudice, based on an unopposed 23 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Id. Therefore, they argue that res judicata bars 24 the present action. Id. Plaintiffs did not oppose Defendants’ motion. Id. 25 26 Dockets.Justia.com 1 CIVIL NO. 10-1358(SEC) 2 Standard of Review 3 A motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6) premised on an affirmative defense such as res 4 judicata may be appropriate if “the facts that establish the defense... [are] definitively 5 ascertainable from the allegations of the complaint, the documents (if any) incorporated therein, 6 matters of public record, and other matters of which the court may take judicial notice.” In re 7 Colonial Mortgage Bankers Corp., 324 F.3d 12, 16 (1st Cir. 2003). Moreover, “the facts so 8 9 Page Page 2 gleaned must conclusively establish the affirmative defense.” Id. Applicable Law and Analysis Under the federal rule of res judicata, also referred to as claim preclusion, a valid and 10 final judgment is conclusive of a claim. If the judgment is for the plaintiff, the claim is 11 extinguished and merged in the judgment; if the judgment is for the defendant, the plaintiff is 12 13 barred from reasserting the claim. Restatement of Judgments 2d § 17. Res judicata applies “not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, 14 but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.” 15 Cromwell v. Sac County, 94 U.S. 351, 352 (1877); see also Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc., 16 v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313, 329 (1971); Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v. 17 Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979). In addition, “[o]nce there has been an adjudication on the merits 18 ... all claims which are ‘part of the same cause of action’ are extinguished, whether or not 19 actually asserted in the original action.” Kale v. Combined Ins. Co. of America, 924 F.2d 1161, 20 1164 (1st Cir. 1991). As a consequence of that doctrine, “when a plaintiff pleads a claim in 21 22 federal court, he must, to avoid the onus of claim-splitting, bring all related ... claims in the same lawsuit so long as any suitable basis for subject matter jurisdiction exists.” Id. at 1165. The policy behind the doctrine of res judicata, is “to relieve [the] parties of the cost and 23 24 25 vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication.” Apparel Art Intern. v. Amertex Enters. Ltd., 48 F.3d 576, 583 (1st Cir. 1995). The doctrine is “no ‘mere matter of practice or procedure,’ but 26 1 CIVIL NO. 10-1358(SEC) Page Page 3 2 3 ‘a rule of fundamental and substantial justice, of public policy and of private peace, which should be cordially regarded and enforced by the courts.’” Kale, 924 F.2d at 1168 (internal 4 quotations omitted). Therefore, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has mandated a steadfast 5 6 adherence to the doctrine. Id. (“Any idiosyncratic unfairness that may result from the consistent and straightforward application of preclusion principles is ... far outweighed by the systemic 7 benefits which flow from steadfast adherence to so salutary a doctrine.”). In fact, although the 8 First Circuit has recognized that an occasional exception to the rule may exist in order to 9 prevent “unusual hardship,” it has yet to find a specific instance where it would apply. Id.; see 10 also Rose v. Town of Harwich, 778 F.2d 77, 82 (1st Cir. 1985) (“If, as the Restatement 11 suggests, there may nonetheless be an occasional exception to prevent unusual hardship, this 12 case does not fall within it. This is not a case in which the plaintiff has ‘clearly and convincingly 13 shown that the policies favoring preclusion of a second action are overcome for an extraordinary 14 reason.’”). 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Three elements are required to establish res judicata: (1) that there is a final judgment on the merits in a prior action; (2) that the parties in the prior and the subsequent action are sufficiently identical; and (3) that the causes of action in the two cases are sufficiently identical. Breneman v. U.S. ex rel. F.A.A., 381 F.3d 33, 38 (1st Cir. 2004). In this case, Defendants’ contentions are correct. A review of the Court’s electronic records shows that Plaintiffs filed suit nine years ago against Defendants for the same facts and under the same legal theories. See Civil Case No. 02-2334, Dockets ## 13-14. Moreover, as Defendants state, on that occasion, the Court summarily dismissed Plaintiffs’ suit, based on an unopposed magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Id. Res judicata therefore bars Plaintiffs’ present suit.1 25 1 26 Plaintiffs’ complaint states that their lawyer mishandled the prior case. See Docket # 1, pgs. 3-5. Should that be the case, Plaintiffs should seek legal advice as to what recourse, if any, they may 1 Page Page 4 CIVIL NO. 10-1358(SEC) 2 3 Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 25th day of March, 2011. 6 s/Salvador E. Casellas SALVADOR E. CASELLAS U.S. Senior District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 have against their previous lawyer.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
