406 F. App'x 866
5th Cir.2010Background
- Linda Sapp, a former nurse in Memorial Hermann Healthcare System, pursued an advanced nursing degree at TWU.
- Sapp completed a practicum at a Memorial System facility and worked on a 'career ladder' proposal.
- Sapp claimed she was not properly credited for the career ladder proposal in Sapp I, which involved discrimination claims.
- Sapp I ended in summary judgment for Memorial System; she did not appeal the ruling.
- Sapp II sued Memorial System alleging copyright, unfair trade practices, and unfair competition related to the same proposal.
- The district court granted summary judgment for res judicata; discovery was stayed and amendments were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the denial of leave to amend was an abuse of discretion | Sapp argues for liberal amendment post-deadline. | Memorial System contends Rule 16(b) controls; no good cause to amend. | No abuse; four-factor test supports denial. |
| Whether Rule 56(f)/56(d) postponement of summary judgment was proper | Sapp sought discovery to oppose summary judgment. | Discovery would not affect res judicata issue; not needed. | Not abuse; denial upheld. |
| Whether staying discovery pending dispositive motion was proper | Discovery could inform merits beyond res judicata. | Discovery unnecessary given legal question of res judicata. | Not abuse; stay affirmed. |
| Whether summary judgment based on res judicata was proper | Sapp II presents new theories against Memorial System. | Claims arise from same nucleus; precluded by prior final judgment. | Affirmed; res judicata bars Sapp II. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meaux Surface Prot., Inc. v. Fogleman, 607 F.3d 161 (5th Cir. 2010) (four-factor abuse of discretion framework for scheduling orders)
- S&W Enters., L.L.C. v. SouthTrust Bank of Ala., NA, 315 F.3d 533 (5th Cir. 2003) (Rule 16(b) abuse of discretion and scheduling orders)
- Raby v. Livingston, 600 F.3d 552 (5th Cir. 2010) (Rule 56(d) basis to defer summary judgment pending discovery)
- Oreck Direct, L.L.C. v. Dyson, Inc., 560 F.3d 398 (5th Cir. 2009) (res judicata and de novo review of its elements)
- Corwin v. Marney, Orton Invs., 843 F.2d 194 (5th Cir. 1988) (preclusive effects and res judicata considerations)
- In re Ark-La-Tex Timber Co., 482 F.3d 319 (5th Cir. 2007) (transactional approach to same nucleus of operative facts)
- Tex. Emp’rs’ Ins. Assoc. v. Jackson, 862 F.2d 491 (5th Cir. 1988) (en banc discussion of res judicata principles)