Caruso v. National Recovery Agency
3:16-cv-01679
S.D. Cal.
Apr 28, 2017

Background

  • Plaintiff Richard Caruso (pro se) filed two related lawsuits against National Recovery Agency (NRA): Caruso I (filed Mar. 2, 2016, against NRA and two credit-reporting agencies) and Caruso II (filed June 29, 2016, against NRA only).
  • Both complaints alleged substantially the same conduct: NRA placed more than 39 unsolicited calls to Plaintiff’s cell phone, failed to identify itself as a debt collector, and engaged in harassing conduct in violation of TCPA, FDCPA, FCRA, California CCRAA, and the Rosenthal Act.
  • Caruso I covered calls alleged between May 5, 2015 and Mar. 2, 2016; Caruso II alleged calls between Mar. 16, 2015 and June 29, 2016—overlapping date ranges and largely identical factual allegations and phone numbers.
  • On Aug. 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed a notice voluntarily dismissing Caruso I “with prejudice,” and the court closed that case the same day.
  • NRA moved under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings in Caruso II, arguing res judicata bars the later suit because Caruso I was dismissed with prejudice; Plaintiff opposed, asserting various reasons why the first dismissal should not preclude Caruso II.
  • The court found the two suits arose from the same transactional nucleus of facts, Caruso I’s voluntary dismissal with prejudice constituted a final judgment on the merits, and the parties were identical; it granted judgment on the pleadings for Defendant and ordered entry of judgment for NRA.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether Caruso II is barred by res judicata Caruso I dismissal should not bar Caruso II; various procedural/contentions about service, magistrate advice, and scope of dismissal Caruso I was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice and therefore is a final judgment on the merits that precludes re‑litigation of the same claims Court held res judicata applies and granted judgment for Defendant
Whether the claims in both suits are the same transaction Plaintiff implied differences (dates/service) mean different claims Defendant: complaints arise from same transactional nucleus (same calls, numbers, allegations) Court found identity of claims; differences were minor and overlapping
Whether voluntary dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits Plaintiff suggested dismissal should not have preclusive effect Defendant: dismissal with prejudice operates as final judgment for res judicata purposes Court held a voluntary dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits and bars subsequent suit
Whether parties are in privity/identical Plaintiff did not contest parties’ identity in substance Defendant: parties are identical to Caruso I Court found identity of parties and thus privity satisfied

Key Cases Cited

  • Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542 (9th Cir. 1990) (standard for Rule 12(c) — accept non‑movant’s allegations; grant only when no material fact dispute)
  • Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2009) (judgment on the pleadings proper when no material fact dispute and moving party entitled to judgment)
  • Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 1999) (Rule 12(c) standards and related authority)
  • Frank v. United Airlines, Inc., 216 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2000) (transactional‑nexus test for identity of claims)
  • W. Radio Servs. Co. v. Glickman, 123 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir. 1997) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised in prior action)
  • Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2001) (dismissal with prejudice indicates dismissal on the merits for preclusion purposes)
  • Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (U.S. 1979) (purpose of res judicata to prevent relitigation and promote judicial economy)
  • Blonder‑Tongue Labs. v. Univ. of Illinois Found., 402 U.S. 313 (U.S. 1971) (preclusion principles and finality)
  • Concha v. London, 62 F.3d 1493 (9th Cir. 1995) (voluntary dismissal with prejudice submits plaintiff to a judgment that bars claims forever)
  • In re Schimmels, 127 F.3d 875 (9th Cir. 1997) (definition of privity for preclusion)
  • Eichman v. Fotomat Corp., 759 F.2d 1434 (9th Cir. 1985) (discussing preclusive effect of voluntary dismissal with prejudice)
  • Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc., 775 F. Supp. 1258 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (voluntary dismissal with prejudice treated as adjudication on the merits)
Read the full case