Kennedy v. Boardman, 233 F. Supp. 3d 117

Sheila Kennedy, a pro se former Amtrak employee, filed a third lawsuit repeating claims (sexual harassment, hostile work environment, retaliation, constructive termination, and constitutional due-process claims against lawyers) arising from the same employment facts previously litigated.
Kennedy previously litigated these claims in this district: Kennedy I (summary judgment for Amtrak on Title VII/DCHRA and related claims) and Kennedy II (dismissal as procedurally barred and for inadequate pleading).
Kennedy filed the instant complaint in D.C. Superior Court in October 2016 and an identical complaint in federal court; defendants removed the Superior Court action to federal court.
Defendants moved to dismiss; Kennedy moved to remand contending lack of federal jurisdiction and default because defendants had not answered.
The court found federal-question jurisdiction (claims under federal statutes and Constitution) and jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1349 because Amtrak is a federally created corporation with majority federal ownership.
The court dismissed: (1) claims against Amtrak and its president as barred by res judicata; (2) claims against Amtrak’s counsel and Kennedy’s former counsel for failure to plead plausible claims, dismissing those claims with prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the case should be remanded to D.C. Superior Court	Kennedy: federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and case should be remanded	Defendants: federal question and §1349 jurisdiction; removal proper	Denied — federal jurisdiction proper under §§1331 and 1349
Whether claims against Amtrak/Boardman are viable	Kennedy seeks to relitigate harassment/retaliation and related claims	Amtrak: claims are precluded by prior judgments (res judicata/claim and issue preclusion)	Dismissed — claims barred by res judicata
Whether claims against Amtrak’s counsel and Kennedy’s prior counsel meet Rule 8(a)/12(b)(6)	Kennedy alleges lawyers deprived her of due process and other violations but provides only conclusory assertions	Defendants: pleadings lack factual allegations to state plausible claims	Dismissed with prejudice — complaints fail Iqbal/Twombly plausibility standard
Whether any remaining state-law claims against prior counsel should proceed	Kennedy implies state-law claims may exist	Defendants moved to dismiss; court need not reach jurisdictional or service defenses	Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims; dismissed federal claims with prejudice

Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (defines claim and issue preclusion principles)
New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (explains claim preclusion scope)
Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (1979) (res judicata policy goals)
Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. EPA, 786 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (res judicata conserves judicial resources and prevents vexatious relitigation)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain factual matter permitting plausible inference of liability)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (established plausibility standard for complaints)
U.S. Postal Serv. v. Am. Postal Workers Union, 553 F.3d 686 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (collateral estoppel bars relitigation of issues decided in earlier case)
Whiting v. AARP, 637 F.3d 355 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (dismissal with prejudice appropriate where plaintiff offers no new allegations)
AMTRAK v. Lexington Ins. Co., 365 F.3d 1104 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (Amtrak is a federal corporation for jurisdictional purposes)
Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (res judicata prevents relitigation of issues that were or could have been decided earlier)