de Jesus v. Dignity Health Corporation

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Myrna de Jesus,
Plaintiff,
v.
Dignity Health Corporation,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-02169-PHX-MTL
ORDER
Plaintiff seeks relief from the judgment of dismissal entered on August 21, 2025.
Plaintiff’s Motion, brought under Rule 60(b), Fed. R. Civ. P., argues that dismissal for res
judicata was inappropriate because this lawsuit asserts claims against Dignity Health
arising after this Court dismissed her claims against Dignity Health in a previously filed
lawsuit, No. 2:21-cv-00926-DWL. (Doc. 13) The Court will deny the motion because
Plaintiff’s complaint, which was properly screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, pleaded claims
that could have been pursued in her 2021 lawsuit. Thus, there is no mistake nor is there
“newly discovered evidence” that supports the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)-(2).
“Ordinarily, claim preclusion (once referred to as res judicata) bars litigation in a
subsequent action of any claims that were raised or could have been raised in the prior
action resulting in a final judgment.” Quinn v. Cardenas, 256 Ariz. 77, 83 (App. 2023)
(citation modified). “[T]he doctrine of res judicata bars the relitigation of all events which
occurred prior to entry of judgment, and not just those acts that happened before the
complaint was filed.” Monterey Plaza Hotel Ltd. P’ship v. Loc. 483 of Hotel Emps. & Rest.
Case 2:25-cv-02169-MTL Document 14 Filed 01/05/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Emps. Union, AFL-CIO, 215 F.3d 923, 928 (9th Cir. 2000); Crosby-Garbotz v. Fell ex rel.
Pima, 246 Ariz. 54, 59 (2019) (“Under claim preclusion, a final judgment may preclude
later litigation of other causes of action based on the transaction or series of transactions
out of which an action arises, considering whether the facts are related in time, space,
origin, or motivation.” (citation modified)).
The complaint in this case alleges, in part:
1. Accessory to Breach of employment contract
On or about March 2, 2021 . . . .
. . . .
3. Slander Per Se
On or about March 1, 2021 . . . .
4. Gross Negligence
On March 2, 2021 . . . .
(Doc. 1 at 5)
All these claims indicate that the wrongful conduct occurred on or about the
beginning of March 2021. These claims could have, and should have, been asserted in
Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Dignity Health filed in March 2021. (See Doc. 1-3 in
No. 2:21-cv-00926-DWL)
Plaintiff’s second cause of action, “[w]rongful interference (3rd Party interference
with contract),” does not allege a specific date. The allegations in this claim for relief relate
to those in the first claim for relief, alleging that the events took place “[o]n or about March
2, 2021.” Thus, this claim could have, and should have, been asserted in the prior lawsuit.
As another basis for denying Plaintiff’s motion, the Court finds that, as pleaded, all
four claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Arizona law imposes a
one-year statute of limitations for defamation actions, A.R.S. § 12-541(1), and a two-year
statute of limitations for negligence claims, id. § 12-542. A one-year statute of limitations
applies to actions arising from breach of employment contracts. A.R.S. § 12-541(3);
Worldwide Jet Charter, Inc. v. Toulatos, 254 Ariz. 331, 336 (App. 2022). And the two-year
statute of limitations applies to tortious interference with contract claims. Ranch Realty,
Case 2:25-cv-02169-MTL Document 14 Filed 01/05/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Inc. v. DC Ranch Realty, LLC, 614 F. Supp. 2d 983, 989 (D. Ariz. 2007). Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s claims for relief are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Motion for Relief From Judgment
Pursuant to Rule 60(b) (Doc. 13) is DENIED.
Dated this 2nd day of January, 2026.
Case 2:25-cv-02169-MTL Document 14 Filed 01/05/26 Page 3 of 3