Ruiz v. Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10366
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- Ruiz worked for Snohomish County PUD from 1998–2010 and was fired in 2010; she alleges sex discrimination tied to false reports by Jim Little.
- In 2011 Ruiz (pro se) sued Little for a 2008 false disciplinary report but failed to effect proper service; Little removed and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and untimeliness.
- Ruiz moved for voluntary dismissal and for an extension to respond; the district court granted dismissal "with prejudice," citing both lack of personal jurisdiction and statute-of-limitations bars; Ruiz did not appeal.
- In 2013 Ruiz sued Little and the District in state court for sex-discrimination claims (state law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983); defendants removed and moved to dismiss, arguing res judicata, untimeliness, and failure to state a claim.
- The district court held the 2012 dismissal was res judicata and dismissed Ruiz’s 2013 claims; Ruiz appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo and considered whether a prior dismissal that rested on both lack of personal jurisdiction and on-the-merits grounds bars a later suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2012 dismissal is a "final judgment on the merits" for res judicata | 2012 dismissal should not preclude new suit because it rested partly on lack of personal jurisdiction | 2012 dismissal was "with prejudice" and thus preclusive; it disposed of the claims on the merits | A dismissal that rests on both lack of personal jurisdiction and a merits ground is not res judicata; the 2012 order did not bar Ruiz’s later suit |
| Whether the court may give preclusive effect to a judgment labeled "with prejudice" when jurisdictional defect exists | Label alone cannot make a jurisdictionally defective ruling preclusive | The label and district-court discretion show intent that dismissal be on the merits | Label is not dispositive; a judgment lacking personal jurisdiction cannot have res judicata effect despite saying "with prejudice" |
| Whether Ruiz could have been required to appeal the 2012 merits ruling to preserve preclusion arguments | Ruiz should not be required to appeal alternative rulings when one is jurisdictional | Defendants argue Ruiz should have appealed to challenge timeliness ruling | Court refuses to encourage appeals solely to preserve preclusion where one alternative ruling is jurisdictional and thus void |
| Timeliness of current claims | Some claims (2010 firing and hostile-work-environment acts within limitations) are timely | Defendants argued all claims barred by prior dismissal/limitations | Federal claim abandoned on appeal; state claims based on events >3 years before 2013 filing are time-barred; 2010 firing and certain hostile-work-environment claims survive |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp, 297 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2002) (res judicata elements and use of “final judgment on the merits” language)
- Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 322 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2003) (statute-of-limitations dismissal is a judgment on the merits)
- Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts, 472 U.S. 797 (1985) (judgment without personal jurisdiction lacks full preclusive effect)
- Sinochem Int’l Co. v. Malaysia Int’l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (2007) (federal courts generally should determine jurisdiction before reaching merits)
- Remus Joint Venture v. McAnally, 116 F.3d 180 (6th Cir. 1997) (alternative dismissal including lack of jurisdiction should not bar future action)
- Pizlo v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 884 F.2d 116 (4th Cir. 1989) (when dismissal rests on multiple grounds and one is non-preclusive, the judgment should not operate as a bar)
- Costello v. United States, 365 U.S. 265 (1961) (certain jurisdictional defects render judgments void)
- Owens v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal with prejudice for failure to prosecute is on the merits; court distinguished that context)