LEGAL DOCUMENTS

This is a wrongful termination and intentional interference with contractual relations case. Defendants Samaritans of Fall River/New Bedford, Inc. (Samaritans) and Ellie Leite (Leite) have moved to dismiss the intentional interference count arguing that it is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

Because matters outside the pleading have been presented to the court, this court elects to follow the provisions of Mass. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and treat the defendants' motion as one for summary judgment.

For the reasons discussed below, defendants' motion is allowed and Count II dismissed.

DISCUSSION

In July 1985, Plante entered into a contract with the Roman Catholic Diocese of Fall River (Diocese) and Bishop Sean O'Malley (Bishop) to become the associate superintendent of elementary schools for the Diocese. She was working in the capacity when, in the summer of 1993, she and Yvonne George (George) attempted to donate money to the Samaritans. The Samaritans refused the gift and, allegedly, began to make defamatory remarks about Plante and George to various members of the Diocese, including the Bishop. Plante was put on involuntary leave of absence by the Diocese in August 1994. Shortly thereafter, George and Plante sued the Samaritans, Leite, and others.² The complaint was heard in four counts, two pertinent to the issues at hand: Count I, Leite defamed George and Plante; and Count IV, the Samaritans defamed George and Plante. Neither the Diocese nor the Bishop were involved in the case. The court allowed the defendants' motion for summary judgment in August 1996.

In February 1997, Plante filed a second law suit, this time naming the Samaritans, Leite, the Diocese, and the Bishop as defendants. The complaint was heard in two counts, one relevant to the issues at hand: Count II, the Samaritans (including Leite) unlawfully interfered with Plante's contract with the Diocese.⁴ In March 1997, defendants Samaritans and Leite filed this motion to dismiss arguing that Count II is the "same claim" that was adjudicated in 1996 and, consequently, Plante is barred from relitigating it under the doctrine of res judicata.

Res judicata, otherwise known as "claim preclusion", bars relitigation in a subsequent action of every claim that was raised or could have been raised in a prior action. Heacock v. Heacock, 402 Mass. 21, 23 (1988). There are three prerequisites to its application: 1) the same parties; 2) the same claim; and 3) a prior judgment on the merits. Id. at 23 n.2.

In the case at bar, the elements have been met. The 1994 suit and Count II and the 1997 complaint involve the same parties namely, Plante, the Samaritans, and Leite. Furthermore, the defamation suit and the interference with contractual relations count are based on the same underlying claim. The present trend is to equate the term "claim" with the term "transaction". Restatement (Second) of Judgments 24 cmt. a (1980). A transaction is as an event or series of events that are substantially related "in time, space, origin, or motivation, and whether, taken together, they form a convenient unit for trial purposes". Id. at 24, cmt. b. In the case at bar, the 1994 defamation suit and the 1997 intentional interference with contractual relations count are rooted in statements made by the Samaritans to the Diocese regarding Plante's fund raising activities between May 1993 and August 1994. These statements constitute one transaction or litigative unit because they were made by the same party (the Samaritans), concerning the same subject (Plante), directed to the same party (the Diocese), and made during one period of time (May 1993 - August 1994).

Finally, there was a prior final judgment on the merits. The 1994 case ended with summary judgment being entered for the defendants' which is given res judicata effect. Wright Machine Corp. v. Seaman-Andwall Corp., 364 Mass. 683, 693-696 (1974).

In sum, Plante was obligated in the first action to put forward every theory of relief based on the statements made by the Samaritans between May 1993 and August 1994. For the purpose of judicial economy, Plante cannot be permitted to assert a defamation claim; await the outcome; and then go forward with an intentional interference with contractual relations claim.

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that the motion for summary judgment of the Samaritans and Leite is ALLOWED and Count II is dismissed.

NOTES:

¹Bishop Sean O'Malley, The Samaritans of Fall River/New Bedford, Inc., and Ellie Leite.

²Michael D. Moran and Peter L. Paull, Jr..

³Count II, Michael D. Moran defamed the plaintiffs; and Count III, Peter L. Paull, Jr. defamed the plaintiffs.

⁴Count I, the Diocese wrongfully terminated Plante.

| BACK | GO TO TOP | NEXT |