Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 107 of 139
or disparagement claims. Rimkus cites Goodman v. Spillers, 28933-CA, p. 11 (La. App. 2
Cir. 12/23/96); 686 So. 2d 160, 167, in which the court stated that “[i]t is generally not
sufficient for purposes of issue preclusion to simply prove that a party to prior litigation
argued numerous issues and lost his case. Issue preclusion requires the issue to be precluded
to have been a dispositive issue which the prior court must have considered in a contest
between the same parties.” (Docket Entry No. 324 at 19–20). Rimkus argues that there is
no way to determine what issues the Louisiana court considered when it granted the motion
for summary judgment on Rimkus’s reconventional demand. Rimkus contends that although
it pleaded several claims in its reconventional demand, the defendants have not shown that
the these claims were actually litigated and decided in the Louisiana court’s May 11, 2009
judgment. Rimkus also cites Lamana v. LeBlanc, 526 So. 2d 1107, 1109 (La. 1988), which
stated that “[a]n issue presented by the pleadings in a cause, but eliminated from the
judgment of the court, cannot be invoked in support of res judicata.” But issue preclusion
does not require that a judgment be accompanied by a statement of the reasons or basis for
the decision. And the Louisiana court clearly stated that its decision on these claims was
based on “the arguments of counsel,” which only raised Texas law.
The concerns addressed in the cases Rimkus cites are not present in this case. In
Goodman, a corporation sued its former directors for breach of fiduciary duty. 28933-CV,
p. 1; 686 So. 2d at 162–63. One of the directors asserted a reconventional demand for unfair
trade practices based on the filing of the suit. 28933-CV, p. 1; 686 So. 2d at 162. The court
granted a directed verdict dismissing the unfair trade practices claim. Id. The director then
107