Blair v. Yum! Brands ( 2021 )

Case: 20-60791 Document: 00515698279 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
January 7, 2021
No. 20-60791 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
Allen R. Blair,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Yum! Brands, Incorporated; Taco Bell of America,
L.L.C.,
Defendants—Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 19-CV-0322
Before King, Smith, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Plaintiff-appellant Allen R. Blair, appearing pro se, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his claims against defendants-appellees Yum! Brands and
Taco Bell of America. The district court concluded that Blair’s claims were
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-60791 Document: 00515698279 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2021
No. 20-60791
barred by res judicata and consequently dismissed the same with prejudice.
Because all elements of res judicata are met, we AFFIRM.
I.
This dispute arises from incidents connected to Blair’s at-will
employment at a Mississippi Taco Bell. During his time there, Blair was
instructed to solicit the completion of a satisfaction survey from customers.
Blair took issue with this instruction and first sued defendants in 2015. See
Blair v. Yum Brands, 697 F. App’x 352, 353 (5th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138
S. Ct. 2654 (2018), reh’g denied, 139 S. Ct. 316 (2018).
Through his first suit, Blair alleged a number of constitutional and
statutory violations premised on the fact that he was asked to solicit the
survey’s completion without additional compensation. The district court
dismissed these original claims with prejudice in 2016; the Fifth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal; the Supreme Court denied certiorari. Id.In the case at bar, Blair again sued the same defendants, in the same
district court, alleging the same set of underlying facts. The district court
below dismissed all claims with prejudice, finding the present lawsuit was
barred by the doctrine of res judicata. This appeal followed.
II.
We review the district court’s dismissal on res judicata grounds de
novo. Davis v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit, 383 F.3d 309, 313 (5th Cir. 2004)
(citing Procter & Gamble Co. v. Amway Corp., 242 F.3d 539, 546 (5th Cir.
2001)). Res judicata prohibits the re-litigation of claims that were, or could
have been, raised in the prior action. Id. at 312-13. The test for res judicata
has four elements: (1) both suits involved identical parties; (2) there is an
existing final judgment on the merits that was (3) rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction; and (4) the suits involved the same claim or cause of
2
Case: 20-60791 Document: 00515698279 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/07/2021
No. 20-60791
action. Test Masters Educ. Servs., Inc. v. Singh, 428 F.3d 559, 571 (5th Cir.
2005). To determine whether both suits involve the same cause of action, we
employ a transactional test. Id. Under the transactional test, “the critical
issue is whether the two actions are based on the same nucleus of operative
facts.” Id. (cleaned up).
III.
As a threshold matter, Blair does not contest the district court’s res
judicata findings on appeal. He also does not meaningfully reply to
defendants’ arguments as to why we should affirm the district court. Rather,
he attempts to relitigate his claims on the merits. Under our waiver
jurisprudence, by failing to challenge res judicata on appeal, Blair has
abandoned such argument. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993)
(“Although we liberally construe the briefs of pro se appellants, we also
require that arguments must be briefed to be preserved.”); see Brinkmann v.
Dall. Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987) (“We will
not raise and discuss legal issues that [the appellant] has failed to assert.”).
Nevertheless, before us is a purely legal question, see Freudensprung v.
Offshore Tech. Servs., Inc., 379 F.3d 327, 338 n.5 (5th Cir. 2004), and the
conclusions reached below are plainly supported by the record.
The district court correctly held that the first three elements of res
judicata are met. Indisputably, the parties in both suits are identical, and a
final judgment on the merits was rendered in the first lawsuit by a court of
competent jurisdiction. See generally Blair v. Brands, No. 1:15CV400-HSO-
RHW, 2017 WL 1549918, at *6 (S.D. Miss. Apr. 28, 2017), aff’d sub nom.
Blair v. Yum Brands, 697 F. App’x 352 (5th Cir. 2017); see also Stevens v. Bank
of Am., N.A., 587 F. App’x 130, 133 (5th Cir. 2014) (collecting published
authority standing for the proposition that “[g]enerally, a federal court’s
dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata
purposes”).
3
Case: 20-60791 Document: 00515698279 Page: 4 Date Filed: 01/07/2021
No. 20-60791
The district court also correctly concluded that the fourth element of
res judicata was met because both lawsuits were premised on identical factual
bases; the timeline and substance of the factual allegations in both suits are
the same—namely, that while Blair was employed at Taco Bell, his rights
were violated when he was asked to persuade customers to complete a
survey. See Steen v. Harvey, 247 F. App’x 511, 515 (5th Cir. 2007) (citing
Davis, 383 F.3d at 313). Certainly, Blair alleges new legal theories in the
instant case, but because both cases arise out of the same nucleus of operative
facts, res judicata nevertheless bars suit.1 See, e.g., Snow Ingredients, Inc. v.
SnoWizard, Inc., 833 F.3d 512, 522 (5th Cir. 2016) (“True res judicata bars
recovery when a party seeks to relitigate the same facts even when the party
argues a novel legal theory.”); Maxwell v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 544 F.
App’x 470, 472 (5th Cir. 2013) (noting that “[r]es judicata extends beyond
claims that were actually raised and bars all claims that could have been
advanced”).
IV.
Thus, the claims in this case are barred by res judicata, and we
therefore AFFIRM the district court’s judgment of dismissal.
1
We agree with the district court that, to the extent Blair’s claims are premised on
Mississippi state law, these claims are also barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See Clark
v. Neese, 262 So. 3d 1117, 1122-23 (Miss. 2019) (outlining the four elements of res judicata
under Mississippi state law). As the district court aptly recognized, under the state-law
standard, whether Blair’s claims are barred likewise turns on an analysis of the underlying
facts and circumstances. See Clark, 262 So. 3d at 1123. The result is the same.
4