![Tartt v. Northwest Community Hospital](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![Tartt v. Northwest Community Hospital](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
Tartt v. Northwest Community Hospital
453 F.3D 817, 88 EMPL. PRAC. DEC. P 42,446, 98 FAIR EMPL.PRAC.CAS. (BNA) 714, 2006.C07.0000312
-
- US$0.99
-
- US$0.99
来自出版社的简介
Derrick Tartt filed two almost identical lawsuits, and the second one was dismissed by the district court for the sake of convenience. The remaining suit was dismissed for failure to state a claim and failure to prosecute. It was not timely appealed. Undaunted, Tartt continued litigating both actions. Due to an oversight by the district court, this court reinstated the suit dismissed for convenience, and Tartt filed a new complaint on remand. But by that time res judicata had taken effect from the suit Tartt failed to timely appeal. The district court held, inter alia, res judicata barred the complaint filed after remand, and Tartt appeals. After delving into the docket sheets of each case to sort out the matter, we conclude Tartts litigation ship has long since sailed and we affirm the district court.