Louis A. Banks and D.B., 6 year old child, Appellants v. Inspired Teaching School, et al., Appellees (2017)

ORDER

Upon consideration of the motions for summary affirmance; and the motion for summary reversal, the oppositions thereto, and the supplement to the motion, it is

ORDERED that the motion for summary reversal be denied and the motions for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court correctly concluded that appellants' action is barred by res judicata based on the District of Columbia Superior Court's August 8, 2016 order. See Capitol Hill Group v. Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLC, 569 F.3d 485, 490 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Appellants do not dispute that the cases arise from the same nucleus of facts and are between the same parties. And the dismissal of appellants' prior case with prejudice operated as a final judgment for res judicata purposes. See Rollins v. Wackenhut Servs., Inc., 703 F.3d 122, 131 (D.C. Cir. 2012). Contrary to appellants' assertion, the Superior Court did have jurisdiction to adjudicate the appellants' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S. 729, 735 (2009).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam