From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Scott v. Kuhlmann

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 6, 1984
746 F.2d 1377 (9th Cir. 1984)

Summary

holding that affirmative defenses may not be asserted on a motion to dismiss if they raise disputed issues of fact

Summary of this case from Toce v. Rentch

Opinion

No. 83-5585.

Argued and Submitted November 8, 1983.

Decided November 6, 1984.

Joanne L. Frank, Edward L. Marsy, Sherman Oaks, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.

Peter Osinoff, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before BROWNING, Chief Judge, WALLACE and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dr. W. Eugene Scott appeals the dismissal of his complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief for alleged violations of his first amendment rights arising out of an FCC investigation of broadcast operations licensed to Faith Center Church, Inc., of which Scott is pastor and president. The district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and, alternatively, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

Scott's complaint is in two counts. Count One alleges the FCC violated Scott's free exercise rights by demanding access to records reflecting his donations to Faith Center, Inc. Count Two alleges the FCC violated Scott's first amendment right to privacy by inquiring into Scott's "sexual habits" during a "secret deposition" of a former employee of Faith Center, Inc.

The claim asserted in Count One cannot be distinguished from that rejected by this court in Scott v. Rosenberg, 702 F.2d 1263 (9th Cir. 1983). It is evident from the record in Scott v. Rosenberg, of which we take notice, see Harrington v. Vandalia-Butler Bd. of Education, 649 F.2d 434, 441 (6th Cir. 1981), and the pleadings in this case, that the issues raised in both cases are the same. Different individuals are named defendants in the two suits, but all are employees of the FCC who participated in the inquiry in which records of Scott's donations were sought. "There is privity between officers of the same government so that a judgment in a suit between a party and a representative of the United States is res judicata in relitigation of the same issue between that party and another officer of the government." Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, 402-03, 60 S.Ct. 907, 917, 84 L.Ed. 1263 (1940). See also Boone v. Kurtz, 617 F.2d 435, 436 (5th Cir. 1980) (per curiam); Mervin v. FTC, 591 F.2d 821, 830 (D.C.Cir. 1978).

The district court based dismissal on lack of subject matter jurisdiction rather than res judicata, but we "must affirm a correct decision on any ground fairly supported by the record." Maykuth v. Adolph Coors Co., 690 F.2d 689, 695 (9th Cir. 1982). The defendants raised res judicata in their motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), rather than in a responsive pleading. Ordinarily affirmative defenses may not be raised by motion to dismiss, C. Wright A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 1277, at 328-30, but this is not true when, as here, the defense raises no disputed issues of fact. Id. at 332. See also Concordia v. Bendekovic, 693 F.2d 1073, 1075-76 (11th Cir. 1982); Boone v. Kurtz, supra. In the circumstances of this case it is appropriate to affirm the district court's order of dismissal of Count One as res judicata even if we assume dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was improper. Southard v. Southard, 305 F.2d 730, 732 (2d Cir. 1962).

As to Count Two, Scott argues his "sexual habits" are within the zone of privacy protecting marriage, procreation, and contraception recognized in Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 97 S.Ct. 2010, 52 L.Ed.2d 675 (1977) and Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 92 S.Ct. 1029, 31 L.Ed.2d 349 (1972). Even assuming Scott's "sexual habits" are within a zone of privacy protected by the first amendment, the district court properly dismissed Count Two as frivolous. Scott failed to allege facts suggesting the FCC "chilled" or "interfered" with the interest. He alleged only that the FCC asked a former employee of Faith Center Church, Inc. and her husband questions about Scott's sexual encounters, and that those questions were not relevant to any legitimate interest of the FCC. Scott relies entirely upon the fact that the questions were asked. He does not allege they were answered, that the answers, if any, reflected in any way upon Scott (indeed he asserts they did not), that the FCC published any information it may have obtained, used it to discredit him, or threatened to do so. Accepting the facts in Scott's complaint as true, and construing them most favorably to him, he fails to allege more than a trivial or incidental interference with his putative privacy interest. The district court did not err in dismissing Count Two on jurisdictional grounds. See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-38, 94 S.Ct. 1372, 1378-79, 39 L.Ed.2d 577 (1974); Ambassador College v. Geotzke, 675 F.2d 662, 663 (5th Cir. 1982); Franklin v. Oregon, 662 F.2d 1337, 1342-43 (9th Cir. 1981).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Scott v. Kuhlmann

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Nov 6, 1984
746 F.2d 1377 (9th Cir. 1984)

holding that affirmative defenses may not be asserted on a motion to dismiss if they raise disputed issues of fact

Summary of this case from Toce v. Rentch

holding that a Rule 12(b) motion is the appropriate vehicle to raise the affirmative defense of res judicata where there are no disputed issues of fact

Summary of this case from Lee v. Thornburg Mortgage Home Loans Inc.

holding that claim preclusion is appropriately raised on a motion to dismiss if the defendant does not raise issues of disputed facts

Summary of this case from Means v. City of San Diego

holding that claim preclusion is appropriately raised on a motion to dismiss if the defendant does not raise issues of disputed facts

Summary of this case from Whitty v. First Nationwide Mortgage Corporation

finding privity between the parties in a case barred by res judicata and stating "[d]ifferent individuals are named defendants in the two suits, but all are employees of the FCC"

Summary of this case from Sepehry-Fard v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

finding privity between the parties in a case barred by res judicata and stating "[d]ifferent individuals are named defendants in the two suits, but all are employees of the FCC"

Summary of this case from Gonzalez v. Sepulveda

affirming the district court's dismissal of a plaintiff's complaint where "[t]he defendants raised res judicata in their motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)" because although "[o]rdinarily affirmative defenses may not be raised by motion to dismiss, . . . this is not true when, as here, the defense raises no disputed issues of fact"

Summary of this case from Goldberg v. Cameron

affirming the application of res judicata in a case where "[d]ifferent individuals [we]re named defendants in the two suits" because "all [we]re employees of the FCC who participated in the inquiry in which records of [the appellant's] donations were sought"

Summary of this case from Theodoropoulos v. Cnty. of L.A.

affirming district court's dismissal of plaintiff's complaint where “[t]he defendants raised res judicata in their motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)” because although “[o]rdinarily affirmative defenses may not be raised by motion to dismiss, . . . this is not true when, as here, the defense raises no disputed issues of fact”

Summary of this case from Composite Res. v. Parsons

affirming the dismissal of a claim on a motion to dismiss due to the defense of res judicata

Summary of this case from Allen v. Campbell

affirming the application of res judicata in a case where "[d]ifferent individuals [we]re named defendants in the two suits" because "all [we]re employees of the FCC who participated in the" challenged conduct that led to the alleged injury

Summary of this case from Williams v. Price

affirming the district court's dismissal of complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b) on res judicata grounds

Summary of this case from Osburn v. Countrywide Home Loans

affirming the application of res judicata in a case where "[d]ifferent individuals [we]re named defendants in the two suits" because "all [we]re employees of the FCC who participated in the" challenged conduct that led to the alleged injury

Summary of this case from Valson v. Cates

affirming the district court's dismissal of complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b) on res judicata grounds

Summary of this case from Rogers v. Robert Half Int'l, Inc.

affirming dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b) on grounds of res judicata because the district court did not consider any disputed facts

Summary of this case from WRI West Gate South, L.P. v. Reliance Mediaworks (USA) Inc.

affirming dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b) on grounds of res judicata because the district court did not consider any disputed facts

Summary of this case from Rasooly v. Self

affirming dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b) on grounds of res judicata because the district court did not consider any disputed facts

Summary of this case from Williams v. Chase Bank/Jp Morgan

affirming dismissal of complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b) on res judicata grounds

Summary of this case from Castaneda v. Foston

affirming dismissal at pleading stage of claim that previously was "rejected" by a court in an earlier lawsuit brought by plaintiff

Summary of this case from Ghosh v. City of Berkeley

affirming dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b) on grounds of res judicata because the district court did not consider any disputed facts

Summary of this case from Tirado v. US Bank Nat'l Ass'n

affirming dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b) on grounds of res judicata because the district court did not consider any disputed facts

Summary of this case from Guevara v. Marriott Hotel Svcs. Inc.

affirming dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b) on grounds of res judicata because the district court did not consider any disputed facts

Summary of this case from Guevara v. Marriott Hotel Svcs. Inc.

recognizing that the affirmative defense of res judicata may be raised by a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)

Summary of this case from Eaton v. Siemens

explaining that affirmative defenses may only be raised by motion to dismiss when "the defense raises no disputed issues of fact"

Summary of this case from Ryan v. Salisbury

opining "[i]t is evident from the record in [the underlying action], of which we take notice, and the pleadings in this case, that the issues raised in both cases are the same."

Summary of this case from Arline v. Clark
Case details for

Scott v. Kuhlmann

Case Details

Full title:W. EUGENE SCOTT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. EDWARD L. KUHLMANN, ETC.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Nov 6, 1984

Citations

746 F.2d 1377 (9th Cir. 1984)

Citing Cases

Morris v. Mini

In Scott v. Kuhlmann, different defendants were named in the two actions, but all were "employees of the FCC…

World Chess Museum, Inc. v. World Chess Fed'n, Inc.

Similarly, a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) cannot be granted based upon an affirmative defense unless…