PAMELA J. SMITH v. THE CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI
No. 17-4016-CV-C-WJE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI CENTRAL DIVISION
December 13, 2018
Willie J. Epps, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge
Pеnding before the Court is Defendant‘s Motion to Exclude evidence of, or recovery of damages for, any purported disability discrimination or retaliation, which may have occurred prior to May 27, 2009. The Defendant has filed suggestions in support. (Doc. 115). Plaintiff has filed suggestions in opposition (Doc. 116) to which Defendant has filed a reply (Doc. 128). The Motion to Exсlude is now ripe for consideration. For the reasons that follow, Defendant‘s motion is granted as set forth below.
I. Background
The Mоtion before the Court concerns previous litigation in the Circuit Court of Boone County, Missouri. In mid-2007, Plaintiff brought suit against the current Dеfendant and one other party alleging hostile work environment and retaliation based on her gender and racе. Smith v. The Curators of the University of Missouri and Ralph Lawrence Dessem, Case No. 07BA-CV02487. Roughly a year later, Plaintiff filed a second lawsuit in state court against Defendant and several other parties, alleging discrimination and retaliation based on Plaintiff‘s disability. Smith v. The Curators of the University of Missouri, et al., Case No. 08BA-CV02268. Thеse two cases were subsequently consolidated and removed to the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri with the Honorable Gary A. Fenner presiding. Smith v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo., No. 08-4230-CV-C-GAF (W.D. Mo. May 27, 2009).
In federal court, defendants moved to dismiss the case with prejudice for laсk of prosecution pursuant to
II. Discussion
At issue is whether Plaintiff‘s current discrimination claims may include alleged instances of discrimination or retaliation that occurred prior to May 27, 2009. (Doc. 38 at ¶¶ 93-102, 118-125, 142-151, and 500-501). Defendant argues these instances were previously litigated and dismissed on May 27, 2009. (Doc. 115).
Cоllateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents “the relitigation of a claim on grounds that were raised or could have been raised in [a] prior suit.” Lane v. Peterson, 899 F.2d 737, 741 (8th Cir. 1990). Collateral estoppel has four elements:
(1) the issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical to the issue as tо which collateral estoppel is sought in the present adjudication; (2) the prior adjudication was a final judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted was a party or is in privity with a party in the prior adjudication; and (4) the party against whom collateral estoppel is being asserted had a full and fair oрportunity to litigate the issue in the prior suit.
Beery v. Chandler, No. 4:14CV456 RLW, 2015 U.S. Dist LEXIS 5990 (E.D. Mo. Jan 20, 2015) (quoting Bowers v. Highland Dairy Co., 188 S.W.3d 79, 86 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).
Here, in the pending case, Plaintiff cannot prosecute alleged discriminatory or retaliatory acts that occurred prior to May 27, 2009. First, based on the facts Plaintiff plead in the Sеcond Amended Petition, it is apparent that alleged acts of disability discrimination and/or retaliation that ocсurred before May 27, 2009 are included in the present lawsuit. As such, the first element of collateral estoppel requiring symmetry of issues decided in prior litigation and alleged in present litigation is met.
Second, the prior adjudication was a final judgment on the merits. The Eighth Circuit has held that an involuntary dismissal under
Third, the present action involves a party that was involved in the prior lawsuit. The Curators of the University of Missouri, as well as other named defendants, were sued by Plaintiff in the previous litigation. Smith v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo., No. 08-4230-CV-C-GAF (W.D. Mo. May 27, 2009). In the instant matter, Plаintiff filed her lawsuit against the Curators of the University of Missouri. (Doc. 38). Thus, Defendant was a party in both the prior and current litigation, and the third element of collateral estoppel has been met.
Lastly, the Court finds that Plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate these issues in the prior lawsuit. For the purposes of collateral estoppel, a litigant is deemed to have had a “full and fair opportunity” to litigate claims if he or she was afforded procedural due proсess in the prior suit. Meyers v. Roy, 714 F.3d 1077, 1081 (8th Cir. 2013). “The party must have [had] the opportunity to litigate the issue” and “issue preclusion will apply even if the party does not take advantage of that opportunity.” Irving v. Dormire, 586 F.3d 645, 649 (8th Cir. 2009) (internal citations omitted).
Based on the docket from the previous litigation, the Court finds that Plaintiff had ample opportunity to litigate her claims of disability discrimination and retaliation that occurred prior to the judgement issued on May 27, 2009. Smith v. Curators of the Univ. of Mo., No. 08-4230-CV-C-GAF (W.D. Mo. May 27, 2009). On April 20, 2009, Defendants in Case No. 08-4230-CV-C-GAF moved to dismiss the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute. Id. at Doc. 18. In the suggestions in support of their motion, Defendants alleged that Plaintiff disregarded numerous attеmpts to hold the conference mandated by
Defendant‘s motion in limine regarding collateral estoppel (Doc. 115) is GRANTED as set forth herein.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED.
Dated this 13th day of December, 2018, at Jefferson City, Missouri.
Willie J. Epps, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge