Myrna de Jesus v. Dignity Health Corporation

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: January 5, 2026
• Docket: 2:25-cv-02169
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Myrna de Jesus, No. CV-25-02169-PHX-MTL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Dignity Health Corporation,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Plaintiff seeks relief from the judgment of dismissal entered on August 21, 2025. 16 Plaintiff’s Motion, brought under Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., argues that dismissal for res 17 judicata was inappropriate because this lawsuit asserts claims against Dignity Health 18 arising after this Court dismissed her claims against Dignity Health in a previously filed 19 lawsuit, No. 2:21-cv-00926-DWL. (Doc. 13) The Court will deny the motion because 20 Plaintiff’s complaint, which was properly screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, pleaded claims 21 that could have been pursued in her 2021 lawsuit. Thus, there is no mistake nor is there 22 “newly discovered evidence” that supports the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(2). 23 “Ordinarily, claim preclusion (once referred to as res judicata) bars litigation in a 24 subsequent action of any claims that were raised or could have been raised in the prior 25 action resulting in a final judgment.” Quinn v. Cardenas, 256 Ariz. 77, 83 (App. 2023) 26 (citation modified). “[T]he doctrine of res judicata bars the relitigation of all events which 27 occurred prior to entry of judgment, and not just those acts that happened before the 28 complaint was filed.” Monterey Plaza Hotel Ltd. P’ship v. Loc. 483 of Hotel Emps. & Rest. 1 Emps. Union, AFL-CIO, 215 F.3d 923, 928 (9th Cir. 2000); Crosby-Garbotz v. Fell ex rel. 2 Pima, 246 Ariz. 54, 59 (2019) (“Under claim preclusion, a final judgment may preclude 3 later litigation of other causes of action based on the transaction or series of transactions 4 out of which an action arises, considering whether the facts are related in time, space, 5 origin, or motivation.” (citation modified)). 6 The complaint in this case alleges, in part: 7 1. Accessory to Breach of employment contract On or about March 2, 2021 . . . . 8 . . . . 9

3. Slander Per Se 10 On or about March 1, 2021 . . . . 11 4. Gross Negligence 12 On March 2, 2021 . . . . 13 (Doc. 1 at 5) 14 All these claims indicate that the wrongful conduct occurred on or about the 15 beginning of March 2021. These claims could have, and should have, been asserted in 16 Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Dignity Health filed in March 2021. (See Doc. 1-3 in 17 No. 2:21-cv-00926-DWL) 18 Plaintiff’s second cause of action, “[w]rongful interference (3rd Party interference 19 with contract),” does not allege a specific date. The allegations in this claim for relief relate 20 to those in the first claim for relief, alleging that the events took place “[o]n or about March 21 2, 2021.” Thus, this claim could have, and should have, been asserted in the prior lawsuit. 22 As another basis for denying Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that, as pleaded, all 23 four claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Arizona law imposes a 24 one-year statute of limitations for defamation actions, A.R.S. § 12-541(1), and a two-year 25 statute of limitations for negligence claims, id. § 12-542. A one-year statute of limitations 26 applies to actions arising from breach of employment contracts. A.R.S. § 12-541(3); 27 Worldwide Jet Charter, Inc. v. Toulatos, 254 Ariz. 331, 336 (App. 2022). And the two-year 28 statute of limitations applies to tortious interference with contract claims. Ranch Realty, 1|| Inc. v. DC Ranch Realty, LLC, 614 F. Supp. 2d 983, 989 (D. Ariz. 2007). Accordingly, 2|| Plaintiff's claims for relief are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Relief From Judgment 4|| Pursuant to Rule 60(b) (Doc. 13) is DENIED. 5 Dated this 2nd day of January, 2026. 6

8 Michael T, Liburdi 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-