Nwachukwu et al v. Acadian Services, LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
STANISLAUS NWACHUKWU AND
BLESSING IJEOMA NWACHUKWU
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS 	NO. 25-1597
ACADIAN SERVICES, LLC ET AL. 	SECTION “R” (2)
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is the motion of defendants Acadia Services, LLC; U-
Haul Holding Company; Repwest Insurance Company; and Dustin Keller to
dismiss plaintiffs’ action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). For
the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND
This case arises out of plaintiff Stanislaus Nwachukwu’s rental of a U-
Haul truck. 1 Plaintiffs allege that defendants filed a false police report which
led to Stanislaus Nwachukwu’s wrongful 	arrest. 	Plaintiffs allege that
defendants discriminated against plaintiffs based on their race, filed an
allegedly false police report which then resulted in Stanislaus Nwachukwu’s
1 	See R. Doc. 1.
Case 2:25-cv-01597-SSV-DPC Document 30 Filed 02/04/26 Page 1 of 8

2
arrest, and inflicted emotional distress on plaintiffs. 2 Plaintiffs additionally
bring a breach of contract claim based on the rental of the U-Haul. 3
Defendants 	argue 	that 	plaintiffs’ 	complaint 	should 	be 	dismissed
because their claims are barred by issue preclusion based on plaintiffs’
previous suit (“Nwachukwu I”) against U-Haul Co. of Louisiana. 4 	In that
suit, plaintiffs Stanislaus Nwachukwu and Ijeoma Blessing Nwachukwu
brought 	claims 	against 	U-Haul 	Co. 	of 	Louisiana 	for 	discrimination,
defamation, negligence, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional
distress, and false imprisonment. 5 	The suit alleged that U-Haul Co. of
Louisiana filed a false police report, leading to a wrongful arrest, for
Stanislaus Nwachukwu’s failure to timely return the rented U-Haul. 6 	This
Court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice following a review of the
summary judgment record in the previous case and released a 27-page order
and reasons detailing the Court’s rationale.7 	Plaintiffs then attempted to
appeal this Court’s decisions but were ultimately unsuccessful.
2 	Id.
3 	Id.
4 	R. Doc. 16.
5 	R. Doc. 16, Exhibit 1.
6 	For a full recitation of the facts of this case, see R. Doc. 16, Exhibit 10.
7 	R. Doc. 16, Exhibit 10.
Case 2:25-cv-01597-SSV-DPC Document 30 Filed 02/04/26 Page 2 of 8

3
Plaintiffs filed this suit after the Fifth Circuit dismissed their appeal of
the summary judgment order but before the Fifth Circuit ruled on their
appeal of this Court’s denial of their procedural motions. Plaintiffs oppose
defendants’ motion, primarily arguing that because they have sued different
entities, issue preclusion does not apply. 8
The Court considers the parties’ arguments below.
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead
enough facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 547 (2007)), and “that, if true, ‘raise a right to relief above the
speculative level.’” 	Franklin v. Regions Bank, 976 F.3d 443, 447 (5th Cir.
2020) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 	A claim is facially plausible
“when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. The Court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true
and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. 	Lormand
v. U.S. Unwired, Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 239, 244 (5th Cir. 2009). But the Court
8 	R. Doc. 22.
Case 2:25-cv-01597-SSV-DPC Document 30 Filed 02/04/26 Page 3 of 8

4
is 	not 	bound 	to 	accept 	as 	true 	legal 	conclusions 	couched 	as 	factual
allegations. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Issue Preclusion
In the present motion to dismiss, defendants urge the Court to dismiss
the 	Nwachukwu’s 	action 	based 	on 	issue 	preclusion. 	Res 	judicata
encompasses 	two 	preclusive 	doctrines: 	“(1) 	true 	res 	judicata 	or 	claim
preclusion and (2) collateral estoppel or issue preclusion.” 	Houston Pro.
Towing Ass’n v. City of Hous., 812 F.3d 443, 447 (5th Cir. 2016) (internal
quotations omitted). 	These two doctrines work to “protect against the
expense 	and 	vexation 	attending 	multiple 	lawsuits, 	conserve 	judicial
resources, and foster reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility
of inconsistent decisions.” 	Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892 (2008)
(cleaned up). At issue here is the second doctrine, issue preclusion.
Issue preclusion bars “‘successive litigation of an issue of fact or law
actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the
prior judgment,’ even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim.”
Id. (quoting New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 748-49 (2001)). For
issue preclusion to apply, three elements must be met:
Case 2:25-cv-01597-SSV-DPC Document 30 Filed 02/04/26 Page 4 of 8

5
(1) the issue at stake must be identical to the one involved in the prior
action;
(2) the issue must have been actually litigated in the prior action; and
(3) the determination of the issue in the prior action must have been a
part of the judgment in that earlier action.
United States ex rel Gage v. Rolls-Royce North America, Inc., 760 F. App’x
314, 317 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting In re Southmark Corp., 163 F.3d 925, 932
(5th Cir. 1999)). 	Additionally, the legal standard used to assess the issue
must be the same in both proceedings. 	Next Level Commc’ns LP v. DSC
Commc’ns Corp., 179 F.3d 244, 250 (5th Cir. 1999).
In this action, all three elements are met. First, the issues at stake in
Nwachukwu I are identical to those at stake here. 	Nwachukwu I involved
claims based on the same set of circumstances. As in the first suit, plaintiffs’
complaint 	alleges 	that 	the 	defendants 	discriminated 	against 	plaintiffs
because of their race, filed a false police report which resulted in Stanislaus
Nwachukwu’s arrest, and inflicted emotional distress on plaintiffs. As with
the first lawsuit, these claims revolve around the plaintiffs’ rental of a U-Haul
from a Louisiana U-Haul location and the events that followed. Namely, U-
Haul’s reporting of the vehicle as unreturned to the St. John Parish Sheriff’s
Office after Stanislaus Nwachukwu kept the vehicle 19-days passed the
original 	return 	date, 	and 	the 	subsequent 	arrest 	and 	incarceration 	of
Case 2:25-cv-01597-SSV-DPC Document 30 Filed 02/04/26 Page 5 of 8

6
Stanislaus Nwachukwu. 	The core facts and issues in both lawsuits are
identical. 9
Plaintiffs do not deny that the suits are based on the same underlying
facts. 10 	Instead, they argue that the issues were not previously decided
because the parties that plaintiffs have sued in the instant action differ from
the party sued in the first action. 11 But the parties do not need to be identical,
“so long as the party against whom estoppel applies had the full and fair
opportunity to litigate the issue in the previous lawsuit.” Rabo Agrifinance,
Inc. v. Terra XXI, Ltd., 583 F.3d 348, 353 (5th Cir. 2009); see also Rolls-
Royce North America, Inc., 760 F. App’x at 317. 	Here, the parties against
whom estoppel applies are plaintiffs. 	The plaintiffs in the present suit are
identical to the plaintiffs in the previous suit. Plaintiffs had a “full and fair
opportunity to litigate the issue[s] in the previous lawsuit.” 	Id. 	That
plaintiffs did not achieve the result they desired in the previous lawsuit is of
no consequence.
Plaintiffs additionally argue that they bring a new claim for breach of
contract in the instant action. 	This argument fares no better. 	Plaintiffs
9 	Compare R. Doc 16, Exhibit 1 with R. Doc. 1.
10 	See R. Doc. 22 at 1 (“the prior action involved overlapping factual
backround”).
11 	See generally R. Doc. 22.
Case 2:25-cv-01597-SSV-DPC Document 30 Filed 02/04/26 Page 6 of 8

7
appear to be confusing claim and issue preclusion. 	Issue preclusion may
apply even if the claims differ. 	Next Level Commc’n, 179 F.3d at 250. It is
the issues that matter, and the issues presented by plaintiffs’ new claims have
already been raised. The contracts at issue in the present matter are the exact
contracts that were presented to the Court in the first matter. 	The Court
already reviewed the contracts and determined that Mr. Nwachukwu kept
the U-Haul long passed the original contract return date. 12 	The issues
underlying the Nwachukwus’ claims are the same as in the original suit. That
the Nwachukwus have found a different label for their grievances does not
alter this.
Second, the issues were all actually litigated in the prior action. 	This
Court released a 27-page Order and Reasons granting summary judgment
for defendant in the first action. See In re Keaty, 397 F.3d 264, 271 (5th Cir.
2005) (noting that courts “apply the doctrine of issue preclusion to issues
decided on summary judgment”).
Finally, the Court’s previous determinations in the Nwachukwus’ first
lawsuit were necessary to its decision to dismiss the Nwachukwus’ case with
prejudice. The third element is therefore satisfied.
Accordingly, plaintiffs’ present action is barred by issue preclusion.
12 	R. Doc. 16, Exhibit 10 at 4-5.
Case 2:25-cv-01597-SSV-DPC Document 30 Filed 02/04/26 Page 7 of 8

8
B. 	Leave to Amend
Because the Court has determined that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by
res judicata, leave to amend would be futile. Accordingly, the Court declines
to grant plaintiffs’ leave to amend their complaint. 	See Matter of: Sherwin
Alumina Co., LLC, 952 F.3d 229, 236 (5th Cir. 2020).
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS defendants’ motion to
dismiss.
The Court DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE plaintiffs’ action against
defendants.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this _____ day of February, 2026.
_____________________
SARAH S. VANCE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4th
Case 2:25-cv-01597-SSV-DPC Document 30 Filed 02/04/26 Page 8 of 8