FLOYD R. BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., DBA I. MAGNIN & CO., AND BULLOCKS NORTHERN CALIFORNIA; SAKS & COMPANY DBA SAKS FIFTH AVENUE; AND DOES I THROUGH XX, APPELLEES
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 the state law claims are barred by res judicata because they arise from the same transactions as the federal antitrust claim previously litigated.
The Supreme Court reversed a prior decision by this court, remanding for proceedings consistent with its opinion. The issue was whether state law clai…
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 State Law Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
In Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, - U.S. -, 101 S.Ct. 2424, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981), the Supreme Court reversed our decision in Moitie v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 611 F. 2d 1267 (1980), and remanded for proceedings in conformity with its opinion. We now affirm the decision of the district court dismissing the action on the basis of res judicata.
The only issue unresolved by the Court’s opinion is whether Brown presented state law claims that are not barred by res judicata.
We held:
Appellants first contend that removal was improper because they stated a valid state claim. We disagree. The court below correctly held that the claims presented were federal in nature, arising solely from price fixing on defendants’ part.
611 F. 2d at 1268. Since this holding was not reversed, the law of the case is that Brown presented no valid state law claims.
Even if he did, they are barred. A judgment on the merits is an absolute bar to a subsequent action between the same parties on the same claim. See IB Moore’s Federal Practice 10.410 at 1163; Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 61 (Tent. Draft No. 5, March 10, 1978). Two claims are the same if they arise from the same transactions or events. Id.
The federal antitrust claim in Brown I and the state law claims in Brown II arise from the same transactions. See 611 F. 2d at 1268. It is not clear that the district court in Brown I would have refused to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims. See - U.S. at -, 101 S.Ct. at 2430 (Blackmun, J., concurring). The state law claims are barred by res judicata.
The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Travelers Indem. Co. v. Sarkisian, 794 F.2d 754 (2d Cir. 1986)
-
Joel and Patty Derish v. SAN Mateo-Burlingame Bd. OF Realtors, 724 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1983)
Authorities Cited
- Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1981)
- Moitie v. Federated Dep't Stores, Inc., 611 F.2d 1267 (9th Cir. 1980)