Summary
concluding that district court's sua sponte dismissal of claims as barred by res judicata was proper
Summary of this case from Mwabira–simera v. Sodexho Marriott Mgmt. Serv.Opinion
No. 07-7030.
Filed On: June 27, 2007.
BEFORE: Sentelle, Henderson, and Tatel, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance and request for attorneys' fees and costs, and the opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action.See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court properly held that appellant's claims are barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. See Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980) ("[A] final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.");Apotex, Inc. v. FDA, 393 F.3d 210, 217-18 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (barring further claims based on the same "nucleus of facts"). Appellant has filed numerous cases arising from the same set of circumstances. See Hobley v. KFC U.S. Properties, No. 04-7202 (D.C. Cir. Sept. 9, 2005) (holding two suits arising from the same set of circumstances as the instant suit were governed by arbitration clause); Hobley v. KFC U.S. Properties, No. 06-7016 (D.C. Cir. July, 25 2006) (holding as barred under the res judicata doctrine nine additional suits filed by Hobley arising from the same set of circumstances). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed, sua sponte, appellant's claims as barred by claim preclusion. See Gullo v. Veterans Co-op. Housing Ass'n, 269 F.2d 517, 517 (D.C. Cir. 1959). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that appellee's request for attorneys' fees and costs be denied.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc.See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.