Saunders v. Neighborhood Restaurant Partners

Opinion

UMNIIDTEDDL ES TDAISTTERS IDCITS TORFI FCLTO CROIDURAT TAMPA DIVISION

CHARMAINE SAUNDERS,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 8:23-cv-2586-SDM-AAS

NEIGHBORHOOD RESTAURANT PARTNERS,

Defendant. ___________________________________/

ORDER Charmaine Saunders accuses Neighborhood Restaurant Partners of negli- gently failing to prevent several employees from “act[ing] outside of the scope of their employment” by drugging Saunders and assisting a patron to sexually assault Saunders. After no timely response to the complaint appeared, the clerk entered a default (Doc. 8). Saunders moves (Doc. 11) for a default judgment. But Neighbor- hood Restaurant moves (Doc. 9) to vacate the default and argues that this action is barred by res judicata. Saunders has filed several actions premised on the alleged sexual assault, which occurred on July 27, 2021. In addition to attempting an earlier action against Neighborhood Restaurant, Saunders has sued the person who allegedly assaulted Saunders, Saunders’s own apartment complex, and the Lakeland Police Department. Saunders v. Smith, 8:23-cv-57-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla.); Saunders v. Breit MF Preserve at Lakeland, LLC, 8:22-cv-2542-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla.); Saunders v. Neighborhood Restau- rant Partners, 8:22-cv-2483-TPB-CPT (M.D. Fla.); Saunders v. City of Lakeland, Florida, 8:22-cv-2482-MSS-JSS (M.D. Fla.). Orders in the actions against the person who al- legedly assaulted Saunders and against Saunders’s apartment complex have dis-

missed each action for failing to invoke subject matter jurisdiction, and an order in the earlier action against Neighborhood Restaurant grants summary judgment for Neighborhood Restaurant on all counts. Res judicata bars an action (1) if in an earlier action a court of competent juris- diction issued a final judgment on the merits, (2) if the parties in the present and the

earlier action are the same, and (3) if “the prior and present causes of action are the same[,]” that is, if “the actions arise ‘out of the same nucleus of operative fact, or [are] based upon the same factual predicate.’” Davila v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 326 F.3d 1183, 1187 (11th Cir. 2003); In re Piper Aircraft Corp., 244 F.3d 1289, 1296–97 (11th Cir. 2001). In other words, res judicata prevents parties to an earlier action from “re-

litigating a cause of action that was or could have been raised in that action.” In re Piper Aircraft Corp., 244 F.3d at 1296 (citing Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)). Because an order in an earlier action, Doc. 97 in Saunders v. Neighborhood Restaurant Partners, 8:22-cv-2483-TPB-CPT (M.D. Fla.), grants summary judgment for Neigh-

borhood Restaurant and because this action and the earlier action are based on “the same nucleus of operative fact” (the alleged sexual assault on July 27, 2021), the claims that Saunders asserts in this action are barred by res judicata. For these reasons and because Neighborhood Restaurant establishes “good cause” to vacate the default, the motion (Doc. 9) to vacate the default is GRANTED. The default (Doc. 8) is VACATED. Saunders’s pending motion (Doc. 11) for a default judgment is DENIED. No later than JANUARY 23, 2024, Saunders must explain why an order should not dismiss this action. The deadline by which Neighborhood Restaurant must respond to the complaint is STAYED pend- ing Saunders’s response to this order. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on January 10, 2024. ALTAD.W AA dyelen STEVEN D. MERRYDAY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-