Catania v. United Federation of Teachers

Background

Patricia Catania, identified in the opinion as the former principal of Intermediate School 224 in the Bronx, and Scott Murphy sued the United Federation of Teachers, certain union representatives, and various teachers at Catania’s former school. They alleged that the defendants conspired to portray Catania as racist and force her removal because she is white.

Catania previously filed a state-court lawsuit concerning her termination. The Bronx County court dismissed some, but not all, claims on November 6, 2020. Plaintiffs later filed another state-court lawsuit in New York County; that case was dismissed on January 14, 2022. In this federal case, defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint adequately states a legal claim.

Magistrate Judge Kevin Fox previously recommended dismissing the case based on res judicata, a rule that can prevent relitigation of claims resolved in an earlier case. The district court rejected that recommendation because it had not considered New York law concerning finality and res judicata. The matter was then assigned to Magistrate Judge Jennifer E. Willis for a new recommendation.

Review of the Report and Recommendation

Judge Willis concluded that the Bronx County lawsuit did not have preclusive effect because it had not concluded with a final decision on the merits and none of the federal claims was identical to a claim dismissed in that lawsuit. Neither party objected to that conclusion. The district court reviewed it for clear error, found none, and adopted it.

Judge Willis also concluded that New York’s present-action-pending doctrine did not apply because that doctrine operates in New York state court, not federal court. Neither party objected to that conclusion, and the district court adopted it as well.

Judge Willis separately recommended staying, or pausing, the federal case under the Colorado River abstention doctrine. That doctrine can allow a federal court to refrain from proceeding while a related state case is pending. The district court declined to adopt that recommendation because the parties had not raised or briefed the issue before Judge Willis. The court noted that the issue is complex and that federal courts generally have a strong obligation to exercise the jurisdiction given to them.

Remaining Dismissal Arguments

The prior recommendations had not addressed all of defendants’ arguments for dismissal. The district court therefore recommitted the case to Judge Willis and instructed her to consider those arguments in the first instance and provide an updated report and recommendation.

The remaining arguments identified by the court included that the action was untimely; that the complaint did not adequately plead elements of claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985; that individual defendants could not be sued in their individual capacities; that Murphy’s derivative claims were not cognizable under those statutes; and that plaintiffs had not sufficiently justified certain damages. The court also left to Judge Willis whether and how to consider defendants’ argument that the New York County lawsuit had preclusive effect.

The court separately rejected defendants’ contention that an allegedly inadequate allegation that defendants acted under color of state law deprived the court of subject-matter jurisdiction. It explained that, in the Second Circuit, the sufficiency of such an allegation is ordinarily tested under Rule 12(b)(6), not under Rule 12(b)(1), the rule governing subject-matter jurisdiction. The court did not decide whether plaintiffs adequately stated their claims; it left that question for Judge Willis.

Disposition

The court adopted in part and rejected in part Judge Willis’s Report and Recommendation. It recommitted the case to Judge Willis for consideration of defendants’ remaining dismissal arguments. The order did not resolve those arguments or reach the merits of plaintiffs’ underlying claims.