Hua v. UofU, Dept. of Soc.

Hua v. UofU, Dept. of Soc.

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Jiayang Hua,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

University of Utah, Department of Sociology (Department Graduate Committee); Professor Frederick Rhodewalt; and Professor George Miller,

Defendants and Appellees.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040275-CA
 

F I L E D
(November 4, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 397

 

-----

Third District, Salt Lake Department

The Honorable Glenn K. Iwasaki

Attorneys: Jiayang Hua, Beijing, China, Appellant Pro Se

Mark L Shurtleff, Nancy L. Kemp, and Scott D. Cheney, Salt Lake City, for Appellees

-----

Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Davis.

PER CURIAM:

    Appellant Jiayang Hua (Hua) appeals the dismissal of his second lawsuit arising from the University of Utah Department of Sociology's decision to terminate his enrollment in a Ph.D. program for failure to make adequate progress. This case is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition.

    On August 20, 2002, Hua filed his first lawsuit, naming as defendants the University of Utah, its Sociology Department, Department Chair Frederick Rhodewalt, and University Vice President David Pershing. The district court dismissed the first lawsuit on the grounds that the untimely notice of claim did not satisfy the jurisdictional prerequisites of the Utah Governmental Immunity Act and that judicial review of academic decisions is not available under the Utah Administrative Procedures Act. Hua did not appeal the dismissal; however, in July of 2003, he commenced a second lawsuit by filing a "Pleading for Judicial Review." This pleading named the University of Utah, its Sociology Department, Department Chair Frederick Rhodewalt, and Graduate Director George Miller. The second lawsuit again sought judicial review and reversal of the May 19, 1999 decision terminating Hua's graduate studies, but also claimed damages for alleged violations of rights, emotional distress, and unconstitutional taking of property.

    Hua appeals both the denial of his request for default judgments and the dismissal of his second lawsuit. The district court dismissed any federal claims based upon the expiration of the four-year statute of limitations of Utah Code section 78-12-25(3), see Utah Code Ann. § 78-12-25(3)(2002) and dismissed the remaining state law claims based upon principles of res judicata. Hua now states that he does not assert any federal claims. Based upon that concession, it is unnecessary to review the determination that any federal claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

    The district court correctly denied the request for default judgments. Rule 55(e) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure applies in all cases against the State or any of its agencies and provides that "[n]o judgment by default shall be entered against the state of Utah or against any officer or agency thereof unless the claimant establishes his claim or right to relief by evidence satisfactory to the court." Hua did not establish his claim to the satisfaction of the district court, and we do not disturb that decision.

    The district court correctly dismissed the second lawsuit based upon principles of res judicata. "The doctrine of res judicata embraces two distinct branches: claim preclusion and issue preclusion." Macris & Assocs., Inc. v. Neways, Inc., 2000 UT 93,¶19, 16 P.3d 1214. Issue preclusion, also called collateral estoppel, applies where the issue challenged is identical in both actions; the issue was "decided in a final judgment on the merits in the previous action"; the issue was "competently, fully, and fairly litigated in the previous action"; and "the party against whom collateral estoppel is invoked [was] either a party or privy to a party in the previous action." Id. as ¶37. The district court ruled in Hua's first lawsuit that "State agency actions to evaluate, discipline, employ, transfer, reassign, or promote students or teachers in any school or educational institution or judicial review of those actions" are excluded from review under the Utah Administrative Procedures Act. See Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-1(2)(d) (Supp. 2003). The district court correctly determined that the issue preclusion branch of res judicata prevented relitigation of the claim seeking judicial review and reversal of the decision to terminate Hua's enrollment in the Ph.D. program.

    Claim preclusion applies where both cases "involve the same parties or their privies," the claims in the second action were either presented in the first action or "could or should have been raised in the first action," and the first action "resulted in a final judgment on the merits." Macris, 2000 UT 93 at ¶20.

    Here, the claims in both cases arise from the same facts, and all events giving rise to the claims, including the ruling on Hua's last internal appeal, were completed before the first lawsuit was filed in August of 2002. Therefore, all claims relating to the termination of Hua's enrollment could and should have been raised in the first lawsuit. The district court's dismissal of the first lawsuit constitutes a ruling on the merits of that case. Accordingly, Hua could and should have raised all claims arising from the same facts, including any damages claims, in the first suit. The district court correctly applied claim preclusion as a bar to any new claims asserted in the second lawsuit arising from the same facts as his original suit. Hua's assertion that the second lawsuit challenged the malicious acts or omissions of the defendants rather than the termination itself does not persuade us that claim preclusion should not be applied because those claims could easily have been asserted in the first lawsuit.

    Accordingly, we affirm the district court's dismissal.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Russell W. Bench,

Associate Presiding Judge

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge