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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 108 of 139 brought a separate suit for malicious prosecution. Id. The corporation argued that issue preclusion applied to essential elements of the malicious-prosecution claim. 28933-CV, p. 9; 686 So. 2d at 166. The court rejected this argument, holding that the directed verdict in the previous suit—which was essentially a finding that no unfair trade practice occurred—did not equate to a finding about whether the corporation had engaged in fraud, deception, or misrepresentation. 28933-CV, p. 10; 686 So. 2d at 167. The court held that the previous judgment was not entitled to preclusive effect because the court was unable to determine the basis on which that litigation was resolved. 28933-CV, p. 11; 686 So. 2d at 167. By contrast, Bell and Cammarata moved under Texas law for summary judgment in Louisiana on Rimkus’s reconventional demand claims for misappropriation of confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information, breach of fiduciary duty, and disparagement. The Louisiana court granted the motion for summary judgment on these claims after reviewing the evidence, the law, and the parties’ arguments, which were all under Texas law. The court stated the basis for its judgment. Rimkus’s reliance on Lamana is also unavailing because in contrast to the facts in that case, the claims pleaded in Rimkus’s reconventional demand were not “eliminated” from the Louisiana court’s judgment. The Louisiana court expressly granted the motion for summary judgment on all claims asserted in the reconventional demand. But this court is not precluded from reconsidering these issues because a statutory exception applies. D. Exception to Preclusion under Louisiana Law In Louisiana, “[a] judgment does not bar another action by the plaintiff . . . [w]hen 108
Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 109 of 139 exceptional circumstances justify relief from the res judicata effect of the judgment.” LA. REV. STAT. § 13:4232. 39 This statute was designed to “allow the court to balance the principle of res judicata with the interests of justice.” Id. cmt. 1990; see also Jenkins v. State, 615 So. 2d 405, 406 (La. Ct. App. 1993). Louisiana’s position is consistent with the Restatement (Second) of Judgments. The Restatement provides that fraud, concealment, or misrepresentation provide a basis to depart from claim preclusion. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS § 26(f); id. cmt. j; see also 18 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 4415, at 359–61 & 360 n.17 (2d ed. 2002). As to issue preclusion, the Restatement states that“[a]lthough an issue is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, relitigation of the issue in a subsequent action between the parties is not precluded” when: [t]here is a clear and convincing need for a new determination of the issue . . . because the party sought to be precluded, as a result of the conduct of his adversary or other special circumstances, did not have an adequate opportunity or incentive to obtain a full and fair adjudication in the initial action. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF JUDGMENTS § 28(5). Issue preclusion does not apply when one party “conceal[s] from the other information that would materially affect the outcome of the case.” Id. cmt. j. In such circumstances, the court in the second proceeding may conclude that issue 39 Louisiana courts have interpreted “res judicata” in Louisiana statutes to encompass both claim and issue preclusion. See Am. Med. Enters., Inc. v. Audubon Ins. Co., 2005- 2006, p. 6 (La. App. 1 Cir. 6/8/07); 964 So. 2d 1022, 1028. 109
Page 1 and 2:
Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Fil
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58: Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Fil
Page 107: Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Fil
Page 139: Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Fil
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?