United States District Court, D. Utah
YURIY V. YUDIN, Plaintiff,
JORDAN SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION
and ACCEPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION
Waddoups United States District Court Judge.
Yuriy V. Yudin, (Mr. Yudin) proceeding pro se, brought this
action against the Jordan School District, alleging (I)
National Origin Discrimination, (II) Disability
Discrimination, (III) Violation of the Public Education Human
Resource Management Act (PEHRMA), a Utah Statute, (ECF No. 3
at 3) (IV) Retaliation (ECF No. 3 at 5) and (V) Religious
Discrimination. (ECF No. 3 at 6).
action was assigned to United States District Court Judge
Clark Waddoups, who then referred it to United States
Magistrate Judge Brook Wells pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B). (ECF. No. 6.) The action was later reassigned
to Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead. (ECF No. 15.) Before the
court is Defendant Jordan School District's Motion for
Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 23).
December 13, 2019, Judge Pead entered a Report and
Recommendation, recommending that the court grant
Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 26.) On
December 30, 2019, Mr. Yudin objected to Judge Pead's
Report and Recommendation. (ECF No. 27.) Mr. Yudin argued
that Judge Pead's “Report and Recommendation must
fail, ” in part because, in Mr. Yudin's view, his
case “has not been fully and fairly litigated in the
Utah Court of Appeals.” (ECF No. 27 at 2.) Mr. Yudin
argued that “[c]ase review has not been granted and the
issues have not been decided on the merits.” (ECF No.
27 at 2.)
explained below, because the Utah Court of Appeals'
summary affirmance is entitled to preclusive effect under
Utah law, it is entitled to preclusive effect in this court.
The court accepts Judge Pead's recommended disposition
and GRANTS Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. (ECF
or around June 6, 2016, Mr. Yudin filed a Petitioner's
Statement with the Utah Labor Commission's Adjudication
Division.” (ECF No. 14 at 2.) In that Statement, Mr.
This Complaint is brought by Yuriy Yudin to secure redress
for employment discrimination and violation of his civil
rights to be free from discrimination on the basis of his
religion and national origin under the First and Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution
(“First” and “Fourteenth Amendment”)
and under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for
violation of his rights secured by the Americans With
Disabilities Act ("ADA") and corresponding statues
in state of Utah.
(ECF No. 9-1 at 2.) Mr. Yudin also alleged that he was
“suffering from ongoing retaliation from [Jordan School
District] as any employer who wanted to hire [him], after
[being] contacted [by Jordan School District] or [Bingham
High School] administration refuses to offer me employment
even those teaching positions remain open.” (ECF No.
9-1 at 6.) In his June 2016 filing, Mr. Yudin did not raise
any argument related to PEHRMA. (See ECF No. 9-1 at
August 22, 2017, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Todd Newman
issued an order granting Bingham High School's Motion for
Summary Judgment.” (ECF No. 14 at 2 (citing ECF No. 9-2
at 17).) ALJ Newman addressed Mr. Yudin's 
“claims for religious and national origin
discrimination, ” (ECF No. 9-2 at 8);  “claim
for disability discrimination/failure to accommodate, ”
(ECF No. 9-2 at 13) and  “claim for
retaliation.” (ECF No. 9-2 at 14.)
September 19, 2017, Mr. Yudin filed a “Motion for
Review” of ALJ Newman's order with the Board of
Appeals of Utah Labor Commission. (ECF No. 9-3.) In his
September 2017 filing, Mr. Yudin argued that his employer had
violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act, the Americans With Disabilities Act,
and PEHRMA. (ECF No. 9-3 at 13.)
December 5, 2017, the Appeals Board of the Utah Labor
Commission entered an order Affirming ALJ Newman's
decision.” (ECF No. 9-4 at 2.) In its Order, the
Appeals Board “consider[ed] Mr. Yudin's arguments
in the context of the complaints against Bingham: 1)
national-origin discrimination; 2) religious discrimination;
3) retaliation; and 4) disability discrimination.” (ECF
No. 9-4 at 5.)
Yudin filed a petition for review of the Appeals Board's
decision with the Utah Court of Appeals on December 12, 2017.
(ECF No. 9-5 at 2.) He named Bingham High School as the
January 4, 2018, the Utah Court of Appeals issued a sua
sponte motion for summary disposition. On February 8, 2018,
the Utah Court of Appeals issued an Order of Summary
Affirmance, finding that Mr. Yudin “ha[d] not corrected
the deficiency and ha[d] failed to raise a substantial issue
for review.” (ECF No. 9-6 at 2.) Despite the fact that
Mr. Yudin had named “Bingham High School” as the
respondent in his petition for review, the Utah Court of
Appeals named the Jordan School District as the respondent.
The Utah Court of Appeals found that “[t]he Appeals
Board of the Labor Commission [had] . . . affirmed the
[ALJ's] . . . order granting summary judgment on
Yudin's discrimination and retaliation claims in favor of
Jordan School District . . . .” (ECF No. 9-6 at 2.)
Ultimately, the Utah Court of Appeals found that Yudin did
“not address the Board's rationale and its detailed
analysis for each of his claims” and found that he had
“failed to state a substantial issue for review
warranting further proceedings by this court.” (ECF No.
9-6 at 3.)
Yudin filed his Complaint with this court on July 18, 2018.
(ECF No. 3.) The Jordan School District filed a Motion to
Dismiss on August 27, 2018. The Jordan School District made
two alternative arguments-(1) that the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine proscribes the court's
jurisdiction and (2) that the Utah Court of Appeal's
decision operates as res judicata. (ECF No. 9 at 2.) On April
4, 2019 the court entered an order denying the Jordan School
District's motion. (ECF No. 14.) The court held that
because Mr. Yudin's complaint did not seek to invalidate
the state-court judgment, Rooker-Feldman could not