Massey v. American Federation of Government Employees, Afl-Cio
253 F. Supp. 3d 42
D.D.C.2017Background
- Douglas Massey, an AFGE member and Local 17 officer, opposed incumbent AFGE President Cox and campaigned against him at the 2015 National Convention; tensions with Local 17 President William Preston led to a hotel confrontation.
- Preston testified he was grabbed by Massey and threatened; Massey admitted a confrontation but said he only put an arm around Preston and said, “You cannot bully me.”
- The AFGE Sergeant‑at‑Arms credited Preston, barred Massey from convention activities, and Preston later sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) in D.C. Superior Court; the TRO was denied and Preston abandoned the petition.
- Massey sued Preston in D.C. Superior Court for abuse of process in Small Claims; after a bench trial Judge Beshouri credited Preston and his wife and entered judgment for Preston; Massey did not appeal.
- Massey filed this federal LMRDA suit alleging Preston and AFGE fabricated the assault/threat to retaliate for Massey’s opposition to Cox; defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing issue preclusion (res judicata) based on the Superior Court findings.
- The district court held Judge Beshouri’s factual findings — that Preston credibly testified he was assaulted/threatened and had good faith to seek a TRO (i.e., no ulterior motive) — were actually and necessarily decided and therefore preclusive, and granted summary judgment for defendants on all counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Superior Court findings about the Convention confrontation are preclusive | Massey: Superior Court’s findings were not necessarily essential to the abuse‑of‑process judgment and thus should not preclude relitigation in federal court | Defendants: Judge Beshouri actually and necessarily resolved the disputed facts (who assaulted/threatened whom and Preston’s motive), so issue preclusion bars relitigation | Held: Preclusive — the Superior Court necessarily found Preston credible and lacking ulterior motive; res judicata applies |
| Whether issue preclusion is unfair because the prior forum was Small Claims and Massey had limited incentives/representation | Massey: Small Claims rules, lack of counsel, and smaller damages meant he lacked incentive and the proceedings could be defective | Defendants: Massey voluntarily litigated to final judgment in the same dispute and had incentive; no record of serious procedural defects | Held: Not unfair — prior proceedings were adequate and Massey had opportunity and incentive to litigate |
| Whether oral (on‑the‑record) findings lack preclusive effect because not memorialized in writing | Massey: Oral findings are insufficiently formal for preclusion | Defendants: Oral bench findings at a full trial are binding and preclusive | Held: Oral findings on the record following trial are preclusive; court rejects Massey’s contention |
| Whether the Superior Court determination forecloses federal statutory (LMRDA) claims that rest on the same disputed facts | Massey: Prior judgment didn’t resolve LMRDA issues and thus shouldn’t bar his federal claims | Defendants: For preclusion, resolution of facts — not identity of causes of action — matters; prior factual findings defeat an essential element of Massey’s claims | Held: Preclusion applies; factual findings are conclusive and Massey cannot prove elements of his LMRDA‑based claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (issue preclusion bars successive litigation of actually litigated and essential issues)
- Martin v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 488 F.3d 446 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (three‑part test for issue preclusion: same issue, actually and necessarily decided, and no unfairness)
- Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. United States, 961 F.2d 245 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (issue preclusion when determination is essential to prior judgment)
- Yellow Bus Lines, Inc. v. Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union 639, 883 F.2d 132 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (abuse of process requires ulterior motive and misuse of process)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard on movant’s burden)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (standard for genuine dispute of material fact at summary judgment)
- Consol. Edison Co. of N.Y. v. Bodman, 449 F.3d 1254 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (court conducting issue preclusion analysis does not reexamine merits of earlier determination)
- Cmty. Nutrition Inst. v. Block, 749 F.2d 50 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (issues litigated in preliminary injunction actions may lack preclusive effect)