257 A.3d 474
D.C.2021Background
- Colvin entered Howard's Political Science PhD program in Fall 2004; Howard policy required degree completion within seven years and candidacy is limited to five years.
- Howard allowed Colvin to re-enroll and admitted him to candidacy in May 2014, but in 2016 the Dean dropped him for exceeding the seven-year time-to-degree, having some courses deemed too old, and failing to meet prior extension conditions.
- Colvin exhausted informal grievance routes campus-wide; Provost and President upheld the dismissal and closed the file.
- Colvin filed four successive Superior Court actions (Colvin I–IV). Colvin I was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) without prejudice by Judge López. Colvin II was voluntarily dismissed. Colvin III (nearly identical to I) was dismissed by Judge Rigsby on 12(b)(6) (order did not state prejudice) and leave to amend was denied. Colvin IV duplicated the proposed amendment and was dismissed by Judge Puig-Lugo as precluded.
- The Court of Appeals consolidated appeals from the Colvin III and Colvin IV dismissals to decide preclusive effects (claim preclusion / issue preclusion) and the denial of leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Colvin III is claim-precluded by Colvin I | Colvin: Colvin I dismissal was without prejudice, so claim preclusion does not apply | Howard: Colvin I was a final, appealable dismissal and bars relitigation | Held: Not claim-precluded; Colvin I was without prejudice for claim-preclusion purposes |
| Whether Colvin III is issue-precluded by Colvin I (sufficiency of pleading) | Colvin: Colvin III added factual detail, so issue not precluded | Howard: The Rule 12(b)(6) sufficiency issue was already litigated and decided in Colvin I | Held: Issue preclusion bars relitigation of the pleading-sufficiency issue; Colvin I resolution was sufficiently firm for issue preclusion |
| Whether denial of leave to amend Colvin III was an abuse of discretion | Colvin: Proposed amendment (conflicting manuals) and added facts would cure defects | Howard: Amendment would be futile because policy outcome is the same and issue preclusion applies | Held: Denial proper — amendment would be futile and was barred by issue preclusion |
| Whether Colvin IV is barred by claim preclusion | Colvin: Colvin III order did not state prejudice, so res judicata inapplicable | Howard: Colvin III operated as dismissal with prejudice and bars Colvin IV | Held: Colvin IV is claim-precluded because Colvin III dismissal is treated as with prejudice and thus final on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Allworth v. Howard Univ., 890 A.2d 194 (D.C. 2006) (implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in university contracts)
- Shin v. Portals Confederation Corp., 728 A.2d 615 (D.C. 1999) (principles of claim preclusion)
- Perry v. District of Columbia, 474 A.2d 824 (D.C. 1984) (dismissal may be appealable even if without prejudice)
- Davis v. Davis, 663 A.2d 499 (D.C. 1995) (elements and standards for issue preclusion)
- Semtek Int'l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2001) (preclusion, finality, and rule-based effects of dismissals)
- Ashton Gen. P'ship, Inc. v. Federal Data Corp., 682 A.2d 629 (D.C. 1996) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal with prejudice is claim-preclusive)