Bettie Pullen-Walker v. Roosevelt University

NONPRECEDENTIALȱDISPOSITION Toȱbeȱcitedȱonlyȱinȱaccordanceȱwith ȱFed.ȱR.ȱApp.ȱP.ȱ32.1

United States Court of Appeals ForȱtheȱSeventhȱCircuit Chicago,ȱIllinoisȱ60604

SubmittedȱDecemberȱ16,ȱ2010* DecidedȱDecemberȱ16,ȱ2010

Before

JOHNȱL.ȱCOFFEY,ȱCircuitȱJudge

JOELȱM.ȱFLAUM,ȱCircuitȱJudge

ANNȱCLAIREȱWILLIAMS,ȱCircuitȱJudge

No.ȱ10Ȭ2150 AppealȱfromȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱDistrictȱ BETTIEȱPULLENȬWALKER, CourtȱforȱtheȱNorthernȱDistrictȱofȱIllinois, PlaintiffȬAppellant, EasternȱDivision.

v. No.ȱ09ȱCȱ5426

ROOSEVELTȱUNIVERSITY,ȱetȱal., JohnȱW.ȱDarrah,ȱ DefendantsȬAppellees. Judge.

OȱRȱDȱEȱR

BettieȱPullenȬWalkerȱfiledȱthisȱbreachȬofȬcontractȱsuitȱagainstȱRooseveltȱUniversity, theȱuniversity’sȱBoardȱofȱTrustees,ȱandȱseveralȱofȱitsȱcurrentȱandȱformerȱemployees.ȱȱPullenȬ Walkerȱclaimsȱthatȱtheȱdefendantsȱbreachedȱanȱimpliedȱcontractȱgoverningȱtheȱtermsȱofȱher enrollmentȱwhenȱtheȱuniversityȱexpelledȱherȱfromȱaȱdoctoralȱprogramȱinȱ2001.ȱȱHerȱlatest action,ȱtheȱseventhȱinȱaȱseriesȱofȱsuitsȱarisingȱfromȱtheȱexpulsion,ȱwasȱbroughtȱinȱstateȱcourt butȱremovedȱbyȱtheȱdefendantsȱonȱtheȱassertedȱbasisȱthatȱitȱstatesȱaȱfederalȱclaimȱunderȱTitle

* Afterȱexaminingȱtheȱbriefsȱandȱrecord,ȱweȱhaveȱconcludedȱthatȱoralȱargumentȱis unnecessary.ȱȱThus,ȱtheȱappealȱisȱsubmittedȱonȱtheȱbriefsȱandȱrecord.ȱȱSeeȱFED.ȱR.ȱAPP.ȱP. 34(a)(2)(C).

No.ȱ10Ȭ2150 Pageȱ2

IXȱofȱtheȱEducationȱAmendmentȱActȱofȱ1972,ȱseeȱ20ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1681(a).ȱȱTheȱdefendantsȱthen movedȱtoȱdismissȱtheȱcomplaintȱonȱtheȱgroundȱofȱclaimȱpreclusion.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourt grantedȱtheȱmotion,ȱandȱPullenȬWalkerȱappeals,ȱarguingȱthatȱtheȱdefendantsȱimproperly removedȱtheȱsuit.ȱ

PullenȬWalkerȱfashionedȱherȱcomplaintȱasȱaȱ“refiling”ȱofȱaȱbreachȬofȬcontractȱaction sheȱbroughtȱinȱstateȱcourtȱagainstȱtheȱsameȱdefendantsȱinȱ2005.ȱȱTheȱdefendantsȱhad removedȱthatȱcase,ȱtoo,ȱbutȱafterȱconcludingȱthatȱtheȱcomplaintȱraisedȱnoȱfederalȱquestion, theȱdistrictȱcourtȱremandedȱtheȱsuitȱtoȱstateȱcourt,ȱwhereȱPullenȬWalkerȱvoluntarily dismissedȱit.ȱȱTheȱcurrentȱcomplaint,ȱcaptionedȱ“Plaintiff’sȱcomplaintȱfiledȱwithinȱoneȱyear ofȱvoluntaryȱdismissal,”ȱisȱPullenȬWalker’sȱattemptȱtoȱresurrectȱherȱ2005ȱcase;ȱitȱusesȱthe sameȱcaseȱnumberȱasȱtheȱ2005ȱcomplaint,ȱandȱoverȱtheȱcourseȱofȱitsȱ15ȱpagesȱallegesȱthe sameȱfactualȱdetailsȱandȱlegalȱtheories,ȱwhichȱboilȱdownȱtoȱaȱclaimȱthatȱPullenȬWalkerȱwas deniedȱtheȱbenefitsȱofȱanȱimpliedȱcontractȱwhenȱtheȱuniversityȱexpelledȱherȱonȱfalseȱcharges, afterȱaȱshamȱinvestigation,ȱandȱinȱviolationȱofȱitsȱownȱpolicies.ȱȱTheȱcomplaintȱidentifiesȱtwo Illinoisȱstatutesȱasȱprovidingȱaȱcauseȱofȱaction,ȱseeȱ735ȱILL.ȱCOMP.ȱSTAT.ȱ5/13Ȭ207;ȱ815ȱILL. COMP.ȱSTAT.ȱ505/1,ȱandȱrefersȱrepeatedlyȱtoȱIllinoisȱcontractȱlawȱand,ȱmoreȱbroadly,ȱthe contractualȱrelationshipȱbetweenȱaȱuniversityȱandȱitsȱstudents.ȱȱTheȱonlyȱreferenceȱtoȱfederal lawȱcomesȱonȱpageȱeight,ȱandȱreadsȱasȱfollows:

Congressȱenactedȱlegislationȱ(1972)ȱforȱprotectionȱofȱstudentsȱrightsȱin educationȱacrossȱlevelsȱthatȱrequiresȱinstitutionsȱtoȱabideȱbyȱtheȱpolicyȱor standardsȱtheyȱthemselvesȱestablish.ȱȱThisȱmandateȱdiffersȱfromȱtheȱSupreme Courtȱrulingȱwhichȱonlyȱaddressesȱtheȱrightsȱofȱwomenȱinȱeducation.ȱȱThe enactmentȱbyȱCongressȱstatesȱinȱrelevantȱpart:

NoȱpersonȱinȱtheȱUnitedȱStatesȱshallȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱsexȱbe excludedȱfromȱparticipationȱin,ȱbeȱdeniedȱtheȱbenefitsȱof,ȱorȱbe subjectedȱtoȱdiscriminationȱunderȱanyȱeducationȱprogramȱor activityȱreceivingȱfederalȱassistance.ȱȱ20ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1681ȱetȱseq.ȱȱ

20.ȱȱAlwaysȱfacingȱtheȱvagariesȱofȱsocietyȱbasedȱonȱgender,ȱrace,ȱandȱage,ȱthe plaintiffȱhasȱpersistedȱinȱthisȱlegislationȱwithȱfaithȱthatȱthisȱidealȱwillȱstand, andȱtoȱpreserveȱaȱcherishedȱlegacyȱasȱanȱalumnaeȱofȱtheȱuniversity.ȱȱThe plaintiffȱhasȱenduredȱwithȱfaithȱthatȱjusticeȱwillȱprevail.

Onȱtheȱbasisȱofȱthisȱlanguageȱalone,ȱtheȱdefendantsȱremovedȱtheȱactionȱtoȱdistrict court.ȱȱTheȱnoticeȱofȱremovalȱassertsȱthatȱPullenȬWalkerȱclaimsȱdiscriminatoryȱexpulsion underȱ20ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1681(a).ȱȱPullenȬWalkerȱdisputedȱthatȱcontentionȱinȱaȱmotionȱtoȱremand, whichȱsheȱmislabeledȱasȱaȱ“motionȱtoȱanswerȱdefendants’ȱreply.”ȱȱSheȱexplainedȱthatȱshe

No.ȱ10Ȭ2150 Pageȱ3

meantȱforȱherȱsuitȱtoȱbeȱaȱrefilingȱofȱherȱ2005ȱcomplaint,ȱwhichȱraisesȱnoȱfederalȱissue,ȱonlyȱa stateȬlawȱcontractȱclaim.ȱȱTheȱdistrictȱcourtȱgrantedȱtheȱmotionȱinȱaȱbriefȱminuteȱorder withoutȱmentioningȱsubjectȬmatterȱjurisdictionȱorȱgivingȱeffectȱtoȱtheȱsubstanceȱofȱthe document,ȱwhichȱconcludesȱwithȱPullenȬWalker’sȱrequestȱthatȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱ“grant Remand”ȱtoȱtheȱstateȱcourt.ȱȱInȱaȱlaterȱdecisionȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱaddressedȱtheȱmeritsȱand grantedȱtheȱdefendants’ȱmotionȱtoȱdismissȱonȱtheȱbasisȱofȱresȱjudicata.ȱ

PullenȬWalkerȱmaintainsȱonȱappealȱthatȱherȱcaseȱbelongsȱinȱstateȱcourt.ȱȱAlthough sheȱadmitsȱtoȱraisingȱTitleȱIXȱclaimsȱinȱpreviousȱsuits,ȱsheȱinsistsȱthatȱthisȱactionȱinvolvesȱno federalȱquestion,ȱandȱisȱsimplyȱaȱrefilingȱofȱherȱ2005ȱbreachȬofȬcontractȱclaim,ȱwhich,ȱshe notes,ȱwasȱdeemedȱbyȱaȱfederalȱcourtȱtoȱsoundȱonlyȱinȱstateȱlaw.ȱ

Congressȱauthorizesȱtheȱremovalȱofȱanyȱcivilȱactionȱbroughtȱinȱstateȱcourtȱoverȱwhich federalȱcourtsȱhaveȱoriginalȱjurisdiction.ȱȱSeeȱ28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1441(a);ȱHukicȱv.ȱAuroraȱLoanȱServ., 588ȱF.3dȱ420,ȱ427ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2009).ȱȱWhenȱtheȱassertedȱbasisȱofȱremovalȱisȱaȱfederalȱquestion, 28ȱU.S.C.ȱ§ȱ1331,ȱtheȱcomplaintȱmustȱestablishȱthatȱfederalȱlawȱcreatesȱaȱrightȱtoȱreliefȱorȱthat aȱrightȱtoȱreliefȱturnsȱonȱtheȱresolutionȱofȱaȱfederalȱquestion.ȱȱSeeȱFranchiseȱTaxȱBd.ȱv.ȱConstr. LaborersȱVacationȱTrust,ȱ463ȱU.S.ȱ1,ȱ10Ȭ11ȱ(1983);ȱHartȱv.ȱWalȬMartȱStores,ȱInc.,ȱAssoc.ȱHealth andȱWelfareȱPlan,ȱ360ȱF.3dȱ674,ȱ678ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2004).ȱȱTheȱfederalȱgroundȱassertedȱtoȱestablish jurisdictionȱmustȱbeȱmoreȱthanȱincidentalȱtoȱaȱstateȬlawȱclaim,ȱseeȱTheȱFairȱv.ȱKohlerȱDieȱ& SpecialtyȱCo.,ȱ228ȱU.S.ȱ22,ȱ25ȱ(1913);ȱJohnsonȱv.ȱOrr,ȱ551ȱF.3dȱ564,ȱ570ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2008);ȱWilliams v.ȱAztarȱIndianaȱGamingȱCorp.,ȱ351ȱF.3dȱ294,ȱ298ȱ(7thȱCir.ȱ2003),ȱandȱtheȱincantationȱofȱa federalȱstatuteȱwillȱnotȱautomaticallyȱtriggerȱfederalȱjurisdiction,ȱseeȱHoweryȱv.ȱAllstateȱIns. Co.,ȱ243ȱF.3dȱ912,ȱ917Ȭ18ȱ(5thȱCir.ȱ2001);ȱRainsȱv.ȱCriterionȱSys.,ȱInc.,ȱ80ȱF.3dȱ339,ȱ343Ȭ44ȱ(9th Cir.ȱ1996).ȱȱ

TheȱremovalȱofȱPullenȬWalker’sȱcomplaintȱwasȱimproper,ȱandȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱerred inȱnotȱremandingȱtheȱlawsuitȱtoȱstateȱcourt.ȱȱAȱreasonableȱreadingȱofȱtheȱcomplaintȱconfirms thatȱthisȱisȱaȱcontractȱdisputeȱwithȱnoȱbasisȱinȱfederalȱlaw.ȱȱTheȱcomplaintȱisȱdevoted exclusivelyȱtoȱtheȱfactualȱdetailsȱsurroundingȱtheȱallegedȱbreach:ȱtheȱmanufactured violationsȱofȱtheȱconductȱcode,ȱtheȱshamȱinvestigation,ȱtheȱarbitraryȱexpulsion.ȱȱTheȱbreachȬ ofȬcontractȱclaimȱneitherȱincorporatesȱanȱelementȱofȱfederalȱlawȱnorȱturnsȱonȱtheȱresolution ofȱaȱfederalȱquestion.ȱȱTheȱmentionȱofȱTitleȱIXȱisȱfleeting,ȱvague,ȱandȱuntetheredȱfromȱfacts thatȱcouldȱsupportȱaȱfindingȱofȱdiscrimination.ȱȱAtȱmostȱtheȱreferenceȱisȱanȱappealȱtoȱpublicȬ policyȱprinciplesȱembodiedȱbyȱtheȱstatute,ȱbutȱthatȱisȱnotȱtheȱsameȱasȱinvokingȱtheȱprovision asȱaȱrightȱtoȱrelief.ȱȱSeeȱRains,ȱ80ȱF.3dȱatȱ343Ȭ44ȱ(explainingȱthatȱcomplaintȱdrawingȱon federalȱstatuteȱasȱaȱsourceȱofȱpublicȱpolicyȱdidȱnotȱraiseȱfederalȱquestion).ȱȱ

HadȱPullenȬWalkerȱraisedȱaȱfederalȱissue,ȱherȱcomplaintȱpresumablyȱwouldȱhave boreȱcloserȱresemblanceȱtoȱherȱtwoȱpreviousȱTitleȱIXȱclaims,ȱinȱwhichȱtheȱfederalȱquestion

No.ȱ10Ȭ2150 Pageȱ4

wasȱconspicuousȱandȱwellȱpleaded.ȱȱForȱinstance,ȱherȱfifthȱsuit,ȱaȱfiveȬcountȱcomplaintȱfiled inȱfederalȱcourtȱwithȱtheȱhelpȱofȱcounsel,ȱassertsȱearlyȱonȱthatȱtheȱsuitȱseeksȱreliefȱunderȱTitle IXȱforȱdiscriminatoryȱexpulsion,ȱandȱidentifiesȱasȱoneȱofȱtheȱcountsȱ“violationȱofȱTitleȱIX.”ȱ Complaintȱatȱ15,ȱPullenȬWalkerȱv.ȱRooseveltȱUniv.,ȱ2006ȱWLȱ1843364ȱ(N.D.ȱIll.ȱJuneȱ28,ȱ2006).ȱ Likewiseȱwithȱherȱsixthȱsuit,ȱaȱproȱseȱactionȱfiledȱinȱfederalȱcourt,ȱwhichȱassertsȱthatȱ“the federalȱquestionȱarisesȱinȱthisȱcaseȱagainstȱdiscriminationȱbyȱRooseveltȱUniversity,”ȱand goesȱonȱnotȱonlyȱtoȱciteȱTitleȱIX,ȱbutȱtoȱallegeȱfactsȱsupportingȱaȱviolationȱofȱtheȱstatute, specificallyȱ“discriminationȱbasedȱonȱsexȱjustifiedȱbyȱmanufacturingȱaȱfalseȱ.ȱ.ȱ.ȱsexist charge.”ȱȱComplaintȱatȱ2,ȱPullenȬWalkerȱv.ȱRooseveltȱUniv.,ȱNo.ȱ08ȱCȱȱ2299,ȱ(N.D.ȱIll.ȱMayȱ8, 2008).ȱȱContrastȱtheȱcomplaintȱinȱthisȱcase,ȱwhichȱfocusesȱexclusivelyȱonȱherȱcontractual relationshipȱwithȱtheȱuniversity,ȱwhichȱcontainsȱonlyȱaȱpassingȱreferenceȱtoȱTitleȱIX,ȱand whichȱfailsȱtoȱdrawȱaȱnexusȱbetweenȱtheȱfederalȱstatuteȱandȱanȱallegationȱofȱdiscrimination.ȱ

WeȱVACATEȱtheȱjudgmentȱofȱtheȱdistrictȱcourtȱandȱREMANDȱwithȱinstructionsȱthat theȱcaseȱbeȱremandedȱtoȱstateȱcourt.ȱ

ȱ