Davis v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 6 — 7 GLORIA DAVIS, Case No. 21-cv-08813-HSG 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 23 10 KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS, 11 Defendant. — 12 — 13 Pending before the Court is Defendant Kaiser Foundation Hospitals’ motion for judgment 14 on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Dkt. No. 23. The Court finds this 15 matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See 16 Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons detailed below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 This is the second case Plaintiff Gloria Davis filed against Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. 19 On September 20, 2019, Plaintiff filed two cases pro se: 20 • Davis v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Case No. 19-cv-05866-HSG (“Davis I”), 21 was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 22 • This action (“Davis II”) was originally filed in the Superior Court of the State of 23 California for the County of Alameda. However, Plaintiff did not serve Kaiser 24 until October 20, 2021. See Davis II, Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1–2. Kaiser then removed the 25 case to the Northern District. See Davis II, Dkt. No. 1. 26 In both cases, Plaintiff alleges that Kaiser wrongfully terminated her employment. Compare 27 Davis II, Dkt. No. 1-2, Ex. A (“Compl.”), with Davis I, Dkt. No. 23 (“FAC”). On February 2, 1 in Kaiser’s favor. See Davis I, Dkt. Nos. 65, 66. Kaiser argues that Davis II is therefore barred by 2 res judicata and must be dismissed. The Court agrees. 3 II. DISCUSSION 4 Res judicata, also known as claim preclusion, limits the ability of litigants to relitigate 5 matters. The doctrine “serves to promote judicial efficiency by preventing multiple lawsuits and 6 to enable the parties to rely on the finality of adjudications.” Dodd v. Hood River County, 136 7 F.3d 1219 , 1224–25 (9th Cir. 1998). Res judicata applies where there is “(1) an identity of claims; 8 (2) a final judgment on the merits; and (3) identity or privity between parties.” Ruiz v. Snohomish 9 Cty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 824 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted). Where these 10 factors are met, res judicata not only bars claims that were actually adjudicated in the prior action, 11 but also all claims that could have been raised in that action. W. Radio Servs. Co. v. Glickman, — 12 — 123 F.3d 1189 , 1192 (9th Cir. 1997). Here, the Court finds that all three requirements for res 13 judicata are satisfied.1 14 i. Identity of Claims 15 Courts determine whether there is an identity of claims by assessing four factors: 16 “(1) whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts; (2) whether rights or 17 interests established in the prior judgment would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the 18 second action; (3) whether the two suits involve infringement of the same right; and (4) whether 19 substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions.” ProShipLine Inc. v. Aspen 20 Infrastructures Ltd., 609 F.3d 960, 968 (9th Cir. 2010) (emphasis omitted) (quotation omitted). 21 The first of these factors is the most important. See Turtle Island Restoration Network v. U.S. 22 Dep’t of State, 673 F.3d 914 , 917–18 (9th Cir. 2012). 23 “Whether two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus depends upon whether they 24 are related to the same set of facts and whether they could conveniently be tried together.” 25 ProShipLine, 609 F.3d at 968 (emphasis omitted) (quotations omitted). The Ninth Circuit has 26 explained that although “[a] plaintiff need not bring every possible claim,” “where claims arise — 27 — 1 from the same factual circumstances, a plaintiff must bring all related claims together or forfeit the 2 opportunity to bring any omitted claim in a subsequent proceeding.” Turtle Island, 673 F.3d at 3 918. 4 Plaintiff alleged several causes of action in Davis I related to her termination, including 5 (1) discrimination based on (a) “race” and “color,” apparently under Title VII; (2) discrimination 6 based on “gender/sex,” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; (3) discrimination based 7 on “age,” under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”); 8 (4) discrimination based on “disability or perceived disability” identified as “Central Nervous 9 System Disorder; Neck; Back et al,” under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”); 10 (5) failure to accommodate disability, apparently under the ADA; (6) retaliation; and 11 (7) harassment. See Davis I, FAC at 3–4. In Davis II, Plaintiff alleged causes of action for 12 wrongful termination and general negligence. See Davis II, Compl. Nevertheless, Davis I and 13 Davis II clearly “arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts.” In both cases, Plaintiff 14 alleges that Kaiser wrongfully terminated her employment. 15 In Davis I, for example, Plaintiff alleged that during her employment she was — 16 — written up aggressively over and over with false allegations perceived 17 as [d]irect retaliation . . . for my continued request for a reasonable accommodation and FMLA leave . . . . — 18 — 19 See Davis I , FAC, Statement of Facts at 12.2 Plaintiff also described instances in which she was 20 falsely accused of leaving a patient unattended and violating the Health Insurance Portability and 21 Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) by improperly accessing and retaining patient health 22 records. Id. at 12–13. And in Davis II, Plaintiff alleged that Kaiser violated her “Constitutional 23 rights as a citizen of the United States and State of California by terminating plaintiff’s 19 years of 24 employment on bogus allegations and denial of both federal and state rights to due process.” See 25 Davis II, Compl. at 4. Even if Plaintiff’s “general negligence” claim in this case is a new legal 26 theory, she could have brought this claim in Davis I. See Turtle Island, 673 F.3d at 918 . — 27 — 1 ii. Identity of Parties 2 Both Davis I and Davis IT also involve the same parties. Plaintiff filed both cases on the 3 same day against “Kaiser Foundation Hospitals.” Compare Davis I, FAC, with Davis IT, Compl. 4 iii, Final Adjudication of Merits 5 Lastly, there has been a final judgment on the merits in Davis I. As noted above, the Court 6 || granted Kaiser’s motion for summary judgment as to each of Plaintiffs claims in Davis I and 7 || entered judgment in Kaiser’s favor. See Davis I, Dkt. Nos. 65, 66. 8 Wl. CONCLUSION 9 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion on res judicata grounds. Because Plaintiff 10 || cannot amend her complaint to avoid res judicata, the Court finds that granting leave to amend 11 would be futile. The Clerk is therefore directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendant and to 12 || close the case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. |! Dated:7/15/2022 8 15 Aare 5 |). HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. = 16 United States District Judge — 18 — — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —