Facts

In February 2016, Professor John Roe, a University of California, Irvine (UCI) professor reported to the University that, for the past four years, plaintiff John Doe had been stalking another graduate student, Jane Roe, at the research laboratory where they worked. According to Professor Roe, John Doe had not only hacked into Jane Roe's computer and social media accounts, he also sabotaged her work at the lab. Due to Professor Roe's allegations, the University commenced a formal Title IX investigation and promptly notified plaintiff of the research misconduct and stalking allegations against him. The University further ordered plaintiff to stay away from Jane Roe. Once the investigation was completed, the University Title IX office found plaintiff responsible for three University student conduct policies violations and also accountable for the stalking. UCI's Dean of Students adopted these findings and recommendations, imposing a two-year suspension in August 2016. Plaintiff sought administrative appeal and the UCI Appeal Body reversed as to two of the three charges, having found that there was insufficient evidence to link plaintiff with the computer hacking and social media stalking charges. However, it did affirm the charge of "Physical Abuse" based on the amount of contact between plaintiff and Jane Roe, as the contact made her "fearful and concerned" and also correlated between the stay-away order and such. Plaintiff then sought another administrative appeal, this time with UCI's Vice Chancellor Thomas Parham. At that point he was given access to 1,869 pages of documents. The Vice Chancellor's office also asked plaintiff to tell them how the documents could have materially affected his case's outcome. After plaintiff made further arguments, his appeal was still denied. Plaintiff then filed a writ challenging the University's decision and the University confessed judgment in the writ proceeding, consenting to having the matter remanded so that it could reconsider its action. Judgment was entered on January 4, 2018, which also noted that the writ did not limit or control any discretion that was legally vested in the University. A little over two weeks later, plaintiff filed suit against Professor John Roe and Jane Roe, asserting claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process based on their alleged statements that started the investigation process against him. While the University was not party to this complaint, Jane Roe and Professor John Roe were both defended by the University's Office of the General Counsel. Using California's anti-SLAPP statute, Jane Roe and Professor Roe filed a special motion to strike the University's 2018 Complaint. The University made several arguments as to plaintiff's motion to strike the 2018 Complaint: California's litigation privilege protected the statements; the University's reinstated proceeding meant there was no "favorable termination," a requirement for the abuse of process claims; the University, not Jane Roe or John Roe, who initiated the administrative proceedings; plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative and judicial remedies given that the University reinstated its proceedings; and finally, several governmental immunities applied. The court granted the anti-SLAPP motion, concluding the case did involve protected activity; it was the University, not Jane Roe and Professor John Roe, who initiated the proceedings and; that the administrative process was not yet complete. Plaintiff John Doe's state case against Jane Roe and Professor John Roe was dismissed. John Doe then filed suit against the University.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff contended that prior to the allegations against him, he too was stalked and harassed for more than a year after he ended a relationship with another UCI student, Jane Roe2. According to plaintiff, in January 2016, he discussed this harassment with Professor Roe and another UCI professor who were dismissive of his concerns and discouraged him from reporting them. When he was formally investigated, he told the investigator about his own harassment situation, and was again discouraged from reporting the incident. At all times during the investigation, plaintiff noted that he cooperated and met with the investigator several times, providing much documentation to support his case and prove that the allegations were false. Conversely, the University stymied his efforts in trying to disprove his case; his requests to access evidence collected and the investigation's file were refused, in violation of University policies. He argued as such in his administrative appeal, contending, among others, that as he was not provided access to the investigator's files, the investigator's recommendation was unreasonable and the University's sanction disproportionate. When plaintiff sought the second administrative appeal, but with the Vice Chancellor, he was finally provided the investigation documents, but they were heavily redacted. Plaintiff further alleged that the documents established that Jane Roe liked to the Appeal Body about the stalking allegations which John Roe used to support an insurance claim. As to the present case, plaintiff argued, among others that, for purposes of res judicata, this case differed from the 2018 lawsuit because while the 2018 suit dealt with false claims against him, this case touches on Title IX and contract claims.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendant argued that plaintiff's claims were barred by res judicata: the case involved essentially the "same cause of action" as plaintiff's 2018 lawsuit; the state court's granting of the anti-SLAPP motion was a final adjudication on the merits; and plaintiff was a party to that first lawsuit. Among, other contentions, defendant argued that because plaintiff could have brought in the claims at issue in this particular case to be a part of the 2018 lawsuit, they involved the same causes of action.

Result

The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The court found that plaintiff's theories of liability related to the same alleged injury as those that he alleged in the state court suit, generally concluding as to that issue, that the claims here involved the same injury to plaintiff, alleged the same wrong by the University and its employees and involved the same operative facts. Moreover, as res judicata revolves around a final judgment on the merits, the state court's dismissal of the 2018 suit and plaintiff's nonpursuit of an appeal, means that that judgment was a final adjudication on the merits. Finally, the two cases involved the same defendants for purposes of res judicata as an employer-employee relationship satisfies this privity requirement.

Other Information

Plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal.