Rosana Boulhosa Nassar v. Eduardo Boulhosa Nassar
708 F. App'x 615
11th Cir.2017Background
- Nassar, a pro se plaintiff, alleges her brother Eduardo sexually abused her as a child, described the abuse in a 1998 book, and that Eduardo later posted false statements online, bought domain names tied to her, and hired private investigators to stalk her.
- Eduardo sued Nassar in Florida state court (2012) for defamation and related claims; Nassar asserted counterclaims including defamation, stalking, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intellectual property harm; the state court dismissed Nassar’s counterclaims with prejudice and denied further amendment.
- Eduardo later voluntarily dismissed his state suit without prejudice; Nassar then filed a federal suit in 2016 alleging cybersquatting, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress based on substantially the same facts as the state counterclaims.
- Eduardo moved to dismiss the federal complaint on res judicata grounds and for failure to state a claim; the district court dismissed for res judicata and denied Nassar leave to file a second amended complaint as futile and unduly delayed.
- Nassar appealed, arguing the state-court dismissal was for lack of personal jurisdiction (so not on the merits), the district court should have reached the merits, and newly discovered evidence warranted leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Res judicata / claim preclusion | Nassar: state dismissal was for lack of personal jurisdiction, so federal suit isn't barred | Eduardo: state-court dismissal was a final adjudication on the merits of Nassar’s counterclaims, barring relitigation | Affirmed: state dismissal operated as an adjudication on the merits under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.420; res judicata bars the federal claims |
| Personal jurisdiction implication | Nassar: state court lacked jurisdiction over Eduardo, so prior dismissal wasn't on merits | Eduardo: state court’s adoption of his motion shows dismissal was on merits; order prevented further amendment | Held for Eduardo: state order adopted the motion-to-dismiss reasoning and did not state dismissal was for lack of jurisdiction |
| Leave to amend (timeliness / newly discovered evidence) | Nassar: newly discovered evidence (domain-name materials, disclosures about surveillance) justifies amendment | Eduardo: allegations predate state counterclaims or could have been raised earlier; amendment would be futile | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; amendment would be futile because claims are barred by res judicata and evidence was not truly new |
| Futility of amendment for new stalking/text message allegation | Nassar: text threat and attorney disclosures show new stalking incidents | Eduardo: those facts arise from same factual nucleus as state claims | Held: even new-claimed facts relate to prior allegations; claims barred by res judicata and amendment futile |
Key Cases Cited
- Leib v. Hillsborough Cty. Pub. Transp. Comm’n, 558 F.3d 1301 (11th Cir. 2009) (12(b)(6) review standard)
- Griswold v. County of Hillsborough, 598 F.3d 1289 (11th Cir. 2010) (de novo review of res judicata application)
- Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870 (11th Cir. 2008) (pro se issues not briefed are abandoned)
- Kizzire v. Baptist Health Sys., Inc., 441 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2006) (apply state res judicata principles when giving effect to state judgment)
- Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 713 F.3d 1066 (11th Cir. 2013) (elements of Florida res judicata)
- Amey, Inc. v. Gulf Abstract & Title, Inc., 758 F.2d 1486 (11th Cir. 1985) (identity of causes of action defined by shared essential facts)
- State v. McBride, 848 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 2003) (res judicata bars claims that could have been raised earlier)
- Cockrell v. Sparks, 510 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2007) (amendment futile standard)