USCA11 Case: 20-11479 Date Filed: 11/17/2020 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 20-11479
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:19-cv-62223-JEM
MALVIN GARNETT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,
a Foreign for-profit Corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(November 17, 2020)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, NEWSOM and ANDERSON, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM:
USCA11 Case: 20-11479 Date Filed: 11/17/2020 Page: 2 of 4
Malvin Garnett appeals the dismissal of his complaint against his former
employer, Southwest Airlines. Garnett filed a complaint in state court against
Southwest for discrimination and for retaliation based on his race and national
origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e,
his right “to the full and equal benefit of all laws,”
id. § 1981, and the Florida Civil
Rights Act, Fla. Stat. § 760.10. Southwest removed the action to the district court,
which “upon sua sponte review of the record” ordered Garnett to “show cause why
[his] action should not be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the doctrine of
claim-splitting or res judicata, given the claims asserted in Case Nos. 19-63050 and
19-20291.” The district court later dismissed Garnett’s complaint. We affirm.
The district court did not err by sua sponte raising the issue of res judicata.
Although res judicata is an affirmative defense subject to waiver, a district court
can sua sponte raise the issue when it has already decided the same claim. Arizona
v. California,
530 U.S. 392, 412 (2000). The district court invoked the doctrine
after having dismissed Garnett’s second amended complaint in case number 19-
20291, in which he alleged that a national labor union, a local chapter, and union
officials “collude[d] with” Southwest to discriminate and retaliate against its
African-American employees” in violation of Title VII, section 1981, and state law
and after having docketed as case number 19-63050 another complaint in which
Garnett alleged similar wrongdoing by Southwest and the labor union. Raising the
2
USCA11 Case: 20-11479 Date Filed: 11/17/2020 Page: 3 of 4
issue was “fully consistent with the policies underlying res judicata” to prevent
Garnett from relitigating issues that were or could have been decided earlier. See
id.; Shurick v. Boeing Co.,
623 F.3d 1114, 1116 (11th Cir. 2010). And Garnett was
not prejudiced because he was given an opportunity to be heard before the district
court decided the issue.
The district court also did not err by dismissing Garnett’s complaint. Res
judicata bars a claim when a court of competent jurisdiction has issued a final
judgment on the merits in another case that involves the same parties or those in
privity with them and that involves the same cause of action.
Id. at 1116–17. The
resolution of case 19-20291 constituted a final judgment on the merits because the
district court dismissed Garnett’s complaint for failure to state a claim and for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and he failed either to avail himself of
the leave he was given to amend his pleading or to appeal. See Garfield v. NDC
Health Corp.,
466 F.3d 1255, 1260 (11th Cir. 2006). In the earlier case, Garnett
alleged the same wrongdoing and asked for similar relief against parties allegedly
in privity with his employer. He alleged that Southwest conspired with a national
and a local labor union and union officials to discriminate and retaliate against
him. See Pelletier v. Zweifel,
921 F.2d 1465, 1501–02 (11th Cir. 1991), abrogated
in part on other grounds as recognized in Douglas Asphalt Co. v. QORE, Inc.,
657
F.3d 1146, 1151 (11th Cir. 2011). Garnett also acknowledged that Southwest was a
3
USCA11 Case: 20-11479 Date Filed: 11/17/2020 Page: 4 of 4
proper party to the earlier suit by alleging that he “intended to amend” his
complaint after he “received a right to sue letter in regards to Southwest Airlines.”
Garnett complained that the defendants’ “conduct, policies, and practices” were
discriminatory and sought reinstatement to his former position with Southwest. Res
judicata barred Garnett’s complaint against Southwest.
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Garnett’s complaint.
4
