PREMIER INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
ROY A. MARLOW, AN INDIVIDUAL, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that Premier's claims were barred by res judicata and that declaratory judgment was improper due to lack of an actual threat of litigation.
Premier sued Roy A. Marlow for declaratory judgment and damages, alleging conspiracy and breach of fiduciary duty. This action stemmed from a prior su…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Breach Of Fiduciary Duty cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
For the facts underlying this present action for damages and declaratory relief see our decision in the companion case styled C & C Products, Inc. v. Fidelity and Deposit Co., (5th Cir.) 512 F. 2d 1375, announced today. In that action, C & C sought damages under an injunction bond posted by its competitor, Premier Industrial Corp. (Premier), with Fidelity acting as surety thereon, for the wrongful suing out of a state court injunction restraining C & C and Roy A. Marlow,' its district sales manager, from engaging in alleged unlawful competitive practices. This court affirmed a jury award of 16,326.06 dollars.
After C & C filed suit in federal district court against Fidelity, Premier brought this suit for declaratory judgment against Roy A. Marlow asserting that he would bring a similar suit for damages, and seeking damages for an alleged conspiracy between Marlow and C & C to pirate Premier employees and for breach of fiduciary duty. The district court dismissed Premier’s claim holding that litigation of Marlow’s and C & C’s alleged unlawful activities was barred by the doctrine of res judicata and that declaratory judgment was improper since Premier had failed to show an “actual threat” of litigation. We affirm.
Premier’s challenge to application of the doctrine of res judicata under the facts of this case is adversely controlled by our holding in C & C Products, Inc. v. Fidelity and Deposit Co., supra.
Premier’s secondary contention, that denial of declaratory relief was improper, falls with the affirmance of the first point.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- C & C Prods., Inc. v. Fid. & Deposit Co. OF Md., 512 F.2d 1375 (5th Cir. 1975)