Eighth Circuit: Tom Dunne, Jr. v. Resource Converting, LLC

 

Jury's award of punitive damages without compensatory damages in a suit seeking return of a 400K investment necessarily found that while there had been an injury, no compensatory damages were warranted.  A lack of compensatory damages when awarding punitive damages does not offend the state's law, as establishment of damages is different than award of damages.  Additur in this situation would be unconstitutional.

Criminal fines for correlative conduct cannot be used to establish disproportionality of award.

Court did not abuse discretion in holding that the claim at law precluded equitable redress for the lost funds.

Court's reduction of requested fees was valid under governing state law; similar reduction in costs was valid under governing federal law.

Court erred by applying federal law to claim preclusion; the appropriate law is the law of the forum in which the first decision was made.

Economic loss doctrine, under the law of the state, would not bar claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. 

Tom Dunne, Jr.  v.  Resource Converting, LLC

Second Circuit: Cho et al. v. BlackBerry Ltd. et al.

 

Since the named members of a putative class didn't individually join the appeal, they can't participate in any action subsequent to the disposition of the appeal; they were not included in their capacity as others similarly situated, although they might have been included if the appeal had been filed by a putative representative et al.

Since the defendant added subsequent to the appeal was in privity with the original defendants and the cause of action arose from the same transaction or occurrence, res judicata prevents the named non-appellants from pursuing their claims against the new party.

Court did not abuse discretion in denying the motion to reconsider.

Cho et al. v. BlackBerry Ltd. et al.

Sixth Circuit: Merrilee Stewart v. IHT Ins. Agency Group

ERISA claim  would be foreclosed by res judicata given the court proceedings related to the term of employment, even if the arbitration-ordered release of claims were to be vacated.

Merrilee Stewart v. IHT Ins. Agency Group

Eighth Circuit: Scott H. Lansing v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

As the claim based in a loan modification application arose within the pendency of the initial foreclosure action, it was available then as an affirmative defense, and is therefore now barred by res judicata.  The present claim based on the loan application violated petitioner's contractual agreement not to judicially challenge the foreclosure action.

http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/18/07/171067P.pdf

DC Circuit: Ashbourne v. Hansberry

As both the earlier administrative proceeding and the earlier Article III proceeding permitted joinder of the EEOC claim to the civil suit, Title VII claim rooted in the same nucleus of facts is barred under res judicata.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/A7A90C4B0D21BC8A852582BB0050FB8F/$file/17-5136.pdf

Ninth Circuit: ROSEMARY GARITY V. APWU NATIONAL LABOR ORG.

Employment, Labor, Res Judicata

An allegation of discrimination against a union can state a claim without alleging  breach of the duty of fair representation.


ROSEMARY GARITY V. APWU NATIONAL LABOR ORG.

Seventh Circuit: Richard Bell v. Cameron Taylor

FRCP, Res Judicata, Copyright

Where complaint states that deft used one of plaintiff's photos on a website, but in fact deft used another, deft is not required in the response to point out the error.

No error in denial of leave to amend.

Res judicata correctly barred the subsequent suit.

Copyright holder's stated price of photo insufficient to prove damages.

No error in denial of discovery, declaratory judgment.

Richard Bell v.   Cameron Taylor

Eighth Circuit: Larry Schaefer v. Dale Putnam

FRCP

Claim preclusion bars an action where the parties had notice of the additional claim, might have amended the first claim to incorporate it, and there was nothing preventing a full and fair adjudication of the claims arising out of the transaction.


Larry Schaefer  v.  Dale Putnam

Seventh Circuit: Garrett Fishwick v. City of Chicago

Discrimination

Claims of a lack of transparency in hiring insufficient to violate consent order barring political influence in hiring,also time-barred.

Res judicata bars claim previously dismissed in state court.

No evidence that gov't consented to claim splitting, as it asserted res judicata in all filings.

http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2016/D02-03/C:14-2977:J:Bauer:aut:T:fnOp:N:1697358:S:0

First Circuit: Giroux v. Federal National Mortgage

FRCP

Court does not violate the FRCP by summary denial of a 60(b) motion.

New evidence that is merely cumulative to past assertions is not a basis for a 60(b)2 motion.

Fraud in the foreclosure is distinct from fraud in the litigation, and therefore not a basis for a 60(b)3 motion.

Except in cases of willful default, a summary denial of a 60(b)6 motion on res judicata grounds doesn't violate the FRCP.

http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/15-1270P-01A.pdf

Second Circuit: Fed. Treasury Enter. Sojuzplodoimport v. Spirits Int’l B.V.

Comity, International Law, Trademark, Vodka.

When a foreign sovereign holds that an earlier assignment of trademark rights was ineffective, for purposes of standing, U.S. courts must defer on grounds of comity from questioning the reassignment of rights, although the subsequent questions on the merits of each assignment within its jurisdiction may be decided.

For purposes of the act of state doctrine, a state's decision on the ownership of a U.S. trademark may be considerwd as occurring within its own territory.

There is very likely no commercial exception to the Act of State doctrine.  (!)

The assignment of rights of ownership of a trademark is a governmental, not commercial, act.

Prior dismissal of trademark claim does not bar present claim under res judicata, as dismissal for statutory standing is a curable defect.

As prior dismissal was voluntary, presumption of laches arises on non-Lanham claims.

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b020799-9c35-4029-be16-860e741e9114/1/doc/14-4721_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/2b020799-9c35-4029-be16-860e741e9114/1/hilite/