Dixon v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth.

The trial court's elimination of all but one of plaintiffs' claims based on its sua sponte ruling that the claims were barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata did not give the plaintiffs fair notice and an opportunity to respond.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Eric K. Dixon and James Sprowl appeal from the trial court’s order of July 13, 1998 in this suit arising out of Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority’s MARTA’s decision to fire them for allegedly stealing MARTA property. In that order, the court ruled 1 that the appellants’ claims, “with the exception of their claim for malicious prosecution, are barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata”; 2 denied the appellants’ motion for partial summary judgment; and 3 denied the appellants’ motion for injunctive and declaratory relief. The appellants also challenge the trial court’s order granting MARTA’s motion in limine to exclude evidence of an alleged similar transaction. For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part.

Sprowl and Dixon were employed by MARTA as electrical power technicians. On March 31, 1993, the two were arrested by MARTA police for theft of company property. Samuel Wright, the appellants’ supervisor, sent the appellants to meet with George Barlow, the Deputy Director of Maintenance, and Ken McDonald, the appellants’ General Foreman. MARTA police officers escorted the appellants to MARTA headquarters, where the meeting continued. When the appellants arrived, they were interviewed by MARTA officers Dilworth and Holt in the presence of a court reporter. Following the interview, Barlow told the appellants that their employment was being terminated for theft of MARTA property.

Dixon v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth.

The trial court's elimination of all but one of plaintiffs' claims based on its sua sponte ruling that the claims were barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata did not give the plaintiffs fair notice and an opportunity to respond.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report