Depianti v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., 873 F.3d 21

Background

Jan-Pro operates a national, two-tier franchise model: Jan‑Pro sells master franchise rights to independent master owners (e.g., BME), who in turn contract with unit franchisees (e.g., Depianti).
Depianti signed a 2003 franchise agreement with master owner BME as an FP‑100 unit franchisee and paid BME $23,400; he later sued claiming he was misclassified and actually an employee of Jan‑Pro in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, § 148B.
Parallel litigation occurred: Depianti sued Jan‑Pro in federal court in Massachusetts (which certified a question to the Massachusetts SJC), while Jan‑Pro sued in Georgia state court seeking declaratory relief that it was not Depianti’s employer.
The Georgia superior court granted summary judgment for Depianti but certified an interlocutory jurisdiction question; Jan‑Pro appealed under Ga. Code Ann. § 9‑11‑56(h), and the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed, holding Depianti was not an employee.
The Massachusetts SJC later answered the certified question, holding that lack of a contract between the putative employer and worker does not preclude liability under § 148B, but did not apply that holding to Depianti’s record.
After the Georgia Supreme Court denied certiorari and the Georgia action was dismissed with prejudice, the Massachusetts federal district court gave preclusive effect to the Georgia appellate judgment and granted summary judgment for Jan‑Pro; the First Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Georgia Court of Appeals' judgment is final for res judicata	G. Depianti: Not final because superior court never entered an express final judgment after certiorari denial	Jan‑Pro: GCA decision final once certiorari denied; appeal under § 9‑11‑56(h) made appellate judgment binding	Held: Final — immediate appeal under Georgia law made the GCA decision binding and preclusive
Whether Massachusetts court must independently revisit Georgia personal-jurisdiction ruling	Depianti: Georgia courts lacked personal jurisdiction so judgment cannot preclude him	Jan‑Pro: Superior court certified jurisdiction for immediate appeal; Depianti did not pursue it; thus Georgia courts' jurisdictional ruling is binding	Held: Georgia court’s certified interlocutory ruling became final for preclusion; Massachusetts court bound by it
Whether intervening Massachusetts SJC decision (Depianti Answer) defeats preclusion	Depianti: SJC decision changed law so prior GCA decision should not preclude relitigation	Jan‑Pro: Res judicata binds despite subsequent change in law; final judgments remain preclusive even if later considered wrong	Held: Subsequent change or clarification of law does not undo res judicata effect of a final judgment
Whether federal court must re‑decide merits despite state preclusion	Depianti: District court should not be bound and must decide § 148B merits anew	Jan‑Pro: Federal court must give full faith and credit to Georgia preclusion rules and honor the GCA judgment	Held: Federal court correctly applied Georgia preclusion law and granted summary judgment for Jan‑Pro

Key Cases Cited

Depianti v. Jan‑Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc., 465 Mass. 607 (Mass. 2013) (Massachusetts SJC holding that lack of contract does not bar § 148B liability)
Jan‑Pro Franchising Int'l, Inc. v. Depianti, 310 Ga. App. 265 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011) (Georgia Court of Appeals reversing and holding Depianti was not an employee)
Moitie v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc., 452 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1981) (res judicata promotes finality; errors in prior judgments do not defeat preclusion)
Southern Pacific Railroad Co. v. United States, 168 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1897) (importance of conclusiveness of judgments)
Haag v. United States, 589 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2009) (res judicata precludes relitigation of claims that were or could have been raised)
Atwater v. Chester, 730 F.3d 58 (1st Cir. 2013) (federal courts must give state-court judgments same preclusive effect as in the rendering state)