*1 .110(c) Bailey’s governs section medical constitutionally applied valid
claims and is as
to these claims.
IV. CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the board’s dismissal of Bai-
ley’s 1999 claims. We 1997 and REVERSE
the board’s dismissal of his 2001 claim and proceedings
REMAND for further on that DeNARDO, Appellant,
Daniel
CALISTA and Alaska CORPORATION
Newspapers, Inc., Appellees.
No. S-11183.
Supreme of Alaska. (Alaska 1992). employer hearing years Once an controverts for more than two after receiv- advice, employee ing any the burden shifts to the previous to that deficiencies in prosecute promptly. the claim When viewed written notices had no effect on his claims. whole, requirements as a these Bailey’s procedural are rational To the extent due they promote purpose process the core of the claims are based on the assertion that compensation workers' act: hearing establish a the board should have scheduled a sua efficient, quick, system resolving 23.30.155(h), sponte and fair argument for under AS disputes. .155(h) § Ch. SLA 1988. In the con- gives meritless. Subsection at most whole, system hardly text of the aas it is sponte the board act discretion to sua in set- impose proceed- ting hearing unreasonable to ing the burden of a claim request. without a employer Bailey on claimant after the has filed a has not shown circumstances dem- formal onstrating controversion. board's failure to schedule (c) 23.30.110(c), Bailey hearing next asserts that AS a (d) was an abuse of discretion. him, applied right procedural Finally, Bailey argues violates his Geophysical act- process. Bailey due To the extent bases ed in bad faith when it controverted his claims. argument inadequate on issues opinion or mis- But independent the medical of the leading statutory examiner, vagueness, notice or expressly medical who stated that assuming Bailey lack merit even deficiencies did not need narcotics and benzodiaze- in the pines, written notices he received. Our review Geophysi- would have sufficed to allow specific of the prevail record satisfies us that the ad- hearing opinion cal to at a if the re- hearing vice he received from the officer at the opinion mained uncontradicted. The prehearing adequately independent conference in- medical examiner is thus suffi- obligation request formed him of his Harp, hear- cient reason under 831 P.2d at for a ing years. request good-faith within two Since he filed his controversion.
July 2000. His Case No. 3AN- claims, alleged Cl numerous 00-8753 includ- contract, filing retaliation ing breach of Department of Labor and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commis- *3 sion, negligent intentional and and infliction DeNardo, se, pro Anchorage. Daniel on of emotional distress based harassment toward, by, and favoritism some of ANI’s Weiss, E. and Pamela D. Guess Joan Rohlf employees. DeNardo amended his female P.C., Anchorage, Appellees. & Rudd 7, 2000, complaint August changes on but the purposes appeal. are not material for BRYNER, Justice, Chief Before: EASTAUGH, MATTHEWS, FARE, and lawsuit. In 2000 DeNar- Second October CARPENETI, Justices. against his do filed second lawsuit Calista brought
and ANI. He this action federal A00-309-CV, OPINION court in Case No. and based his claims on the same facts asserted in his EASTAUGH, Justice. state court action. The federal I. INTRODUCTION alleged state law claims of and intentional infliction of emotional distress Plaintiff filed three state and federal law- law gender federal claims of discrimination employer. against suits former After the his under 42 and sexual harassment U.S.C. dismissed, superior first two actions were 2000(e)-2000(e)(17)(Title VII). § third, it holding was his judicial policy barred and the res Calista and ANI removed Case No. 3AN- against appeals. claim splitting. Plaintiff Cl, action, 00-8753 the state court to federal Because terms of the dismissal court in where November it became in the first court action preserved state A00-351-CV; in Case No. December defen- claims, plaintiffs ju- res non-federal neither dants moved for consolidation of the two against splitting dicata nor the doctrine claim cases. Judge federal United District States bars the third action. We vacate therefore consolidation, H. Russel Holland ordered but in the dismissal order third action and in April 2001 Case No. remanded A00-351- proceedings. remand for further jurisdiction retaining CV to state court while over No. Case A00-309-CV. II. AND FACTS PROCEEDINGS remand, Following this DeNardo offered Daniel DeNardo filed three state and fed- to dismiss his now-remanded state court ac- against employer, eral his lawsuits former tion, No. 3AN-00-8753 Cl. The defen- (ANI) Inc., Alaska Newspapers, and its ma- offer, accepted dants and on shareholder, jority Calista Corporation. parties signed a three-paragraph employed ANI had DeNardo as an advertis- stipulation prepared by defense counsel for ing representative sales from October 1999 dismissal Case No. 3AN-00-8753 Cl with July until his termination It is prejudice.1 In May Superior superior court’s dismissal of the last-filed Judge signed Elaine M. Andrews defense lawsuits, judi- grounds these three res proposed granting Stipu- counsel’s “the against cata policy splitting, and the Prejudice.” lation to Dismiss With appeal. that leads to this Calista and ANI then moved for dismissal First remaining lawsuit. DeNardo filed first Case No. ANI, Calista, A00-309-CV, against eight lawsuit contending for- that as tribal enti- they VII, mer co-workers in state court in ties could not be sued under Title stipulation provided, part: plaintiff’s This not affect does Corporation by plaintiff and Alaska [T]he claims asserted [Case Newspapers, currently Inc. in ... A00-309 ... Cl] 3AN-00-8753 ... all defendants entirety, preju- are dismissed in their in the U.S. District Court for the Dis- dice .... of Alaska. trict otherwise, context we refer “employer.” was an Unless dictates neither because collectively appellees to the granted their as “Calista.” District Court States United Judge Holland’s in November 2001. motion stated, III. DISCUSSION howev- dismissal order
memorandum er, no court had A. of Review Standard jurisdiction it “de- over the Title VII judicata applies is a Whether supplemental clines to exercise law, an question of issue that we review de law inflic- plaintiffs state claim for the over interpret stipulations using We novo.2 also The order tion of emotional distress.” interpretation.3 rules of contract We review pursuit that it “is without stated contracts, stip and thus may have in plaintiff law claims state ulations, de novo.4 Court of court.” The United States *4 Ninth affirmed Appeals Circuit DeNar- B. Res Judicata Does Not Bar in 2002. dismissal Negligent of do’s Claims Infliction 2001, In after Third lawsuit. December Distress, of Emotional Intentional Distress, first state action and his federal his of Infliction Emotional dismissed, DeNardo commenced were and Discrimination. by filing superior court com-
third lawsuit
disagree
whether the
about
against
plaint in Case No. 3AN-01-12484 Cl
previ-
entered
two
dismissals
DeNardo’s
and ANI. This
was based
Calista
ous lawsuits bar his third lawsuit. Resolu-
alleged
facts
first state
on the same
requires
of this issue
to consider the
tion
us
It
a claim of
expressly
court action.
asserted
superior
stipula-
effect
court dismissal
against
Calista and ANI
discrimination
the federal
order.
tion and
court dismissal
indirectly
him in violation of AS 18.80.
It
negligent
intentional
claims
asserted
1. Parties’ contentions
infliction of emotional distress.
argues
stipulation
that a
will not
DeNardo
give
of a
construed to
effect to a waiver
and ANI moved to dismiss Case
be
Calista
relinquished.5
right
plainly
of res
to be
Cl on the basis
intended
No. 3AN-01-12484
con-
split
argues that a
must be
judicata
against
and the doctrine
claim
He
according
Phillip
parties’
R. Vol-
intention
ting. Superior
Judge
strued
language.6
De-
grounds.
expressed
the document’s
granted
land
their motion on those
stipula-
requested
the dis Nardo contends
the dismissal
withdrawal of
preserved
filed
No.
tion’s terms
the discrimination
missal
in Case
3AN-00-
jurisdic-
Cl,
superior
regardless
of which court had
but the
court denied
8753
argues
He
the federal
appeals
dis
tion over it.
request. DeNardo
the court’s
claim be-
and its
court dismissed
discrimination
missal of Case No. 3AN-01-12484 Cl
jurisdiction;
contends that
cause it lacked
he
request
of his
withdraw his dismiss
denial
judicata
jurisdictional
dismissals have no res
Case No. 3AN-00-8753 CI.
al
contracts.”)
Prods.,
applied
Metal
United States
2. Tru-Line
Inc. v.
Erection,
Sales, Inc.,
150,
(Alaska
Spinali
(quoting
202
&
52 P.3d
153
Harris v.
Auto
Fabrication
215,
586,
(1962)).
Cal.App.2d
Cal.Rptr.
20
589
2002).
596,
Seavey,
Deusen v.
603 n.
3. See Van
Deusen,
See also
4.
Van
do’s claims of discrimination. in his a claim 18.80 to assert under AS intent alleged pleaded in the plaint the same facts complaint, precludes us original state in No. state law discrimination claim Case complaint encompassing such reading that Cl; complaint Case No. 3AN-00-8753 of DeNar- The dissent’s discussion read to in- A00-309-CV therefore should be might be and the complaint do’s complaint clude the same claims as the represented if compelling DeNardo had been reason, For that Case 3AN-00-8753 Cl. given leniency with But counsel. given leniency interpreting oür interpret pleadings se we which pro se pleadings litigants,16 we read focusing think that on DeNar- litigants, we complaint No. A00-309-CV understanding of his do’s current (1) federally to have asserted: based dis- litigant’s misplaced. proA pleadings is (2) claim, dis- crimination a state-law based complaint of his own need claim, (3) crimination state-law based actually pleads; be what it determinative negligent and infliction of emo- intentional judg- independent must exercise its the court tional distress claims. determining the com- what claims ment plaint’s assert. recitation words asserted that federal “sexually dis- and use the term facts important, given stipula terms of the are complaint in his first establish criminated” signed by tion for dismissal post hoc pleaded that it a AS 18.80 Case No. 3AN-00-8753 CI. To determine not- pleading of his intentions explanation dismissal, effect of withstanding.15 necessary stipulation’s it determine the interpreta- Although present effect. complaint determina- of his first is not tion first state After the action was removed to alleged, claims that tive of what *6 supe- court and then to the federal remanded understanding of contemporaneous court, parties stipulation signed rior stipulation meaning of the for dismissal dismissing No. Cl with Case 3AN-00-8753 interpretation. its As to this relevant to prejudice.17 issue, that he appeal DeNardo contends on preserve his understood the to in court.
claims then “(1) judicata a applies Res if: (2) jurisdiction, competent has rendered of No. DeNardo’s federal Case (3) merits, judgment final on the and asserted state-law based A00-309-CV parties cause of action same or and intentional infliction of emo- same and testified, (c) [inap- complaint, Except provided person a or as- this section has filed here], proceeding chapter.... a plicable sisted in under it is unlawful for (1) employer employment to to a an refuse Hustad, (Alaska Leis v. Cf. person employment, person, a or to bar 2001) property (giving weight little division against compen- person to discriminate a or party’s testimony re- about intent case to trial term, condition, privilege of sation or in a or par- garding property because transmutation of race, person’s employment reli- because of the during marriage proba- are more ties’ actions tive). color, origin, gion, or or because of national physical disability, person's age, the sex, or mental status, status, changes in marital marital Castro, supra 16. See note 11. See also 540 U.S. pregnancy, parenthood or when the reasonable 381-82, (noting S.Ct. 786 federal court at position require distinc- demands do not recharacterizing pro litigant's policy mo- age, physical mental on the basis or tion unnecessary in order to avoid dismissal or tions sex, status, disability, changes marital in mari- stringent application inappropriately of formal status, pregnancy, parenthood; tal or align labeling requirements, or to substance of basis). legal pro se motion’s claim with its (4) employer, organization, or em- an labor expel, ployment agency discharge, or other- removed first 17. Recall that defendants court, against person discriminate a where it became wise case to the federal opposed person any practices court later has forbidden Case No. A00-351-CV. The federal superior to the remanded Case A00-351-CV under AS 18.80.200—18.80.280 or because rights plainly involved in privies their were both suits.”18 waive “not intended to be relin University Alaska Anchor- quished.” recognize In Plumber v. We that “courts look age whether a for stipulations designed simpli we discussed with favor give fy, could prejudice litigation, dismissal with rise to res shorten or settle or to save judicata: give stipulations costs and will not such Moreover, forced construction.”23 the “lan stipulation to dismiss claims with
[A]
guage purporting to reserve a claim must be
judicata
prejudice
pur
is sufficient for res
explicit,
parties
so that ‘the
ha[ve]
poses:
stipulation [to dismiss claims
“[A]
opportunity
an
language,
to dicker over the
just
prejudice] is
as valid as a final
with
[are]
but
thereafter on notice about which
resulting
judgment
from trial on the
claims were reserved and which were not.’
merits,
judicata
is res
as to all issues
and
rights
Blanket reservations of
will not suf
or could have
deter
that were raised
been
fice.”
pleadings.”[19]
mined under the
dispute
no
that the first and third
There is
We therefore turn to the
judicata
requirements
present
for res
are
pre
determine which claims DeNardo
dispute
superi-
parties
here. The
do not
served.
or court’s
in the first state action.
Defendants’ counsel drafted the
undisputed
parties
It is also
in both
CI,
in Case No. 3AN-00-8753
and DeNardo
present
the first state action and the
attorney signed
and defendants’
it on
DeNardo, Calista,
ANI,
included
and
paragraph
2001. The first
stated that
causes of action are the same
both
“the claims asserted
[DeNardo]
[Case
lawsuits.
No. 3AN-00-8753
...
all
CI]
defen
concerning
dispute
But there is a
the sec-
entirety,
dants are
their
with
requirement.
dispute
ond
do not
prejudice.”
paragraph
But the second
stated
judg-
court rendered
final
plain
“[t]his
does not affect
“granted”
ment on the merits when it
Corporation
tiffs claims
prejudice in
dismiss
Alaska Newspapers, Inc. in ... A00-309 Civ
Cl,
they disagree
No. 3AN-00-8753
but
....,
currently pending in the U.S. District
about what claims the dismissal
re-
Therefore,
the District of Alaska.”
solved.20
though
even
agreed
in the first
Res
based on a
paragraph to a
dismissal with
prevent
plaintiff
dismissal does not
from the claims he had asserted in his first state
*7
bringing
that
expressly
cause of action
was
court
paragraph preserved
the second
adjudication.21
for later
stipula
reserved
A
his claims
Calista and ANI then
may
litigation,
tion
a claim for
pending
27,
reserve
later
in
April
federal court as of
when
and courts
not construe the
parties
signed
will
the
stipulation.
See,
Plumber,
brought
court and retained
e.g.,
over Case No.
in the first action.
A00-309-CV.
335
entirety
with
...
affect-
splitting
[without
4. Claim
... cur-
ing] plaintiffs claims
prohib-
splitting
The doctrine
rently
District
pending in the U.S.
part of the claim an
“advancing one
its
meaning of the
the District of Alaska.” The
remaining parts
reserving the
initial
suit
questions
order and
raise
of law.
present law-
Because the
for a later suit.”33
41(a)(1)
presumes
Rule
that a
Civil
already
only claims'
raised
suit raises
prejudice”
will be entered “without
dismissal
split his
DeNardo did not
first state
supply
it to the
a differ-
but leaves
It was therefore error to hold
parties expressly
meaning.
ent
Here the
splitting
against claim
barred
the doctrine
prejudice”;
agreed to a dismissal “with
but
current action.
proceedings
provision allowing
further
DeNardo’s federal claims make it obvious
Rescission of
something
they contemplated
narrower
stipulations “can
asserts that
be
DeNardo
traditionally
meaning
than the
broad
of “with
justice
in the interests of
rescinded
circumstances,
I
prejudice.” Given these
injustice.”
superior
a manifest
The
avoid
guidance
would take
from the somewhat nar-
court denied DeNardo’s motion
rescind
usually given
meaning
rower
dismissal
stipulation. DeNardo’s brief does
41(b)’s
“on the merits” under Civil Rule
de-
deny
it was error to
rescission
assert
recently
provision.
recognized,
As we
fault
reference to the issue is com-
and its terse
prejudice under the default
dismissal with
to demonstrate that it was
pletely insufficient
41(b)
provision
typically
Rule
bars the
deny
request.34
of discretion to
an abuse
refiling
claimant from
claims in the
same
“
the dismissal:
‘unlike a
that ordered
IV. CONCLUSION
prejudice,”
“without
the dismissal
dismissal
reasons,
foregoing
For the
we VACATE
refiling
...
of the same claim the
bar[s]
”1
dismissing plaintiffs complaint
order
[same court].’
proceedings
this lawsuit and REMAND for
Apart
being
meaning given
the usual
opinion.
consistent with this
prejudice” in a dismissal
to the term “with
kind,
meaning comports
this
order of this
Justice,
BRYNER,
dissenting.
Chief
express
terms of the
with the
BRYNER,
Justice, dissenting.
Chief
case,
contemplated
unequivocally
which
finally dismissing DeNardo’s state-court ac-
opinion’s interpretation
disagree
I
with the
tion,
leaving
while at the same time
DeNardo
dismissing
state ac-
of the order
already
pursue
pending federal
free to
its conclusion that the dismissal
tion and with
meaning
action in federal court. The usual
left DeNardo free to renew his state
similarly comports
and ANI’s
with Calista
court dismissed his federal
after the federal
understanding
stipulation;
more to the
action.
comports
DeNardo’s own
it also
point,
question
meaning
is
The crucial
here
stipulated dismissal’s
description of
dismissing DeNar-
court’s order
meaning.
prejudice.”
initial
action “with
The
do’s
parties’ stipulation,
argument
advances
incorporated
(1)
it,
here,
I
down to this:
agreed to dismiss DeNardo’s state
see
boils
which
asserted tort claims
“against all
...
in their
state action
defendants
State, Dep’t
& Soc.
34. Wilkerson v.
Health
fact.
is a contract. DeNardo's
Servs.,
Servs.,
Family
argument
& Youth
without merit. Further-
Div.
therefore
State,
1018,
1999);
more,
(Alaska
Wren v.
577
1021-22
our
ren-
235,
(Alaska 1978).
argument
litigation
2
P.2d
237 n.
ders this
irrelevant to future
this case.
Barrans,
(Alas-
P.3d
268-69
1. DeNardo v.
Int’l,
State,
2002)
(Alaska
(quoting
v. Lockheed
Semtek
Inc.
33. McDowellv.
ka
497, 506,
Inc.,
2001);
Mech.,
U.S.
121 S.Ct.
Corp.,
Martin
see also Robertson Am.
(2001)).
(Alaska 2002).
ion insists that DeNardo it, finding implied that an IIED claim
pursue complaint. in his new state
lies embedded view, analysis improvidently my
In allowing pro
expands the rule courts to treat now, leniently: litigants’ pleadings until
se carefully confined this rule to situa-
we have
tions in which courts need to relax technical pro liti-
pleading requirements to enable se points they
gants to make the substantive
actually today’s opinion try pursue.5 Yet leniency
vastly power toward broadens litigants using it to assist DeNardo theory prevailing on a substantive that he
actively my judgment, disavows. In by giving un-
court errs DeNardo relief on grounds stray
raised substantive so dra-
matically from the theories briefed.6 ruling
I would affirm the court’s actually argued.
the issues DeNardo
Accordingly, I dissent. FARM
STATE MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE COMPANY,
INSURANCE
Petitioner,
Asa and Barbara DOWDY
Dowdy, Respondents.
No. S-10946.
Supreme Court of Alaska. See, Assn, proposed ruling e.g., v. Nina Condo advance notice of the court’s Gilbert Plaza (Alaska 2003). supplemental opportunity address it in and an briefs. minimum, 6. At a that fundamental fair- I think require given ness that both be should notes a dismissal “with stipulations simplify litigation or settle usually plaintiff refiling bars a from the same reading paragraphs way favors two given claim in the same court.25 But Second, that avoids conflict. extrinsic evi- ambiguity by stipulation’s introduced sec- might help apparent dence resolve the ambi- paragraph, ond we cannot conclude that the guity: 2001 offer to paragraph’s first dismissal of claims “with stipulation implies enter into a that he was prejudice” bars this action before we resolve willing to dismiss his entire state court ac- which claims the dismisses tion; only it stated that he wished to “main- preserves. which claims it prosecution tain the of his Title VII action court.” The-text his dismissal conclude, reasons, We three support offer would a conclusion that he should not be read to fore prevent intended to state court para close the claims reserved the second interfering dismissal from with the federal First, graph. litigants to we hold less proceeding through any (perhaps Second, stringent standards.26 we construe judicata proposed effect the dismissal could ambiguous terms of the document con action). sup- have on the federal This would document, trary preparer to the Calis- port a conclusion that the reservation Third, interpret ta’s counsel.27 we waiver necessarily was not intended to language narrowly.28 permit begin a DeNardo to new state court reading stipula- This does render the asserting “in claims that were nullity inception; tion a from its when the only through federal court” of that exercise stipulation, entered into the the fed- jurisdiction. pendant court’s yet eral court had not ruled that was “employer.” entering stipulation’s not an Parties into the But the reservation not as was Furthermore, rationally could have assumed limited as DeNardo’s offer. court, resolving stipulation explicitly preserved that the federal the Title DeNar- court,29 pendant YII would also resolve the do’s claims then in federal Barrans, (Alaska 1977) (stating 25. See it (Alaska 2002) (barring plaintiff filing "ambiguities same established rule of construction that party supplied in federal court for failure to are construed form”). proceed with trial state court on res drafted the