Brown v. Federated Dep't Stores, 653 F.2d 1266 (5th Cir. 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
Brown v. Federated Dep't Stores, 653 F.2d 1266 (5th Cir. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1983 · …two claims are the same if they arise from the same transactions or events. at p. 1267 ✓
16 citation events across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Derish v. San Mateo-Burlingame Board of Realtors (ca9, 1983-12-23)
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Derish v. San Mateo-Burlingame Board of Realtors (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
9th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
two claims are the same if they arise from the same transactions or events.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Derish v. San Mateo-Burlingame Board Of Realtors (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
9th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
two claims are the same if they arise from the same transactions or events.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Roger Ellis v. Gelson's Markets Arden-Mayfair, Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see"
9th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Beard, 908 F.2d at 477 n. 3; Brown, 653 F.2d at 1267.
discussed Cited "see" Fitzgerald v. Alleghany Corp.
S.D.N.Y. · 1995 · signal: accord · confidence high
McLearn v. Cowen, 48 N.Y.2d 696, 698 , 422 N.Y.S.2d 60, 61 , 397 N.E.2d 750, 751 (1979); accord, e.g., Brown v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 653 F.2d 1266, 1267 (9th Cir.1981); Anderson v. Phoenix Investment Counsel, 387 Mass. 444, 450 , 440 N.E.2d 1164, 1167-70 (1982); Boccardo v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 134 Cal.App.3d 1037 , 184 Cal.Rptr. 903 (1st Dist.1982); Rennie v. Freeway Transportation Co., 294 Or. 319, 325-29 , 656 P.2d 919, 922-24 (1982); Silver v. Queen’s Hospital, 63 Haw. 430 , 629 P.2d 1116 (1981); Restatement (Second) Judgments § 26 (1982).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Nwosun v. General Mills Restaurants, Inc.
10th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., Brown v. Federated Dep’t Stores, Inc., 653 F.2d 1266, 1267 (9th Cir.1981) (where it is not clear the district court would have declined jurisdiction over the supplemental state claims, they are barred by res judicata); Lee v. Village of River Forest, 936 F.2d 976, 980 (7th Cir.1991) (plaintiff must bring all federal and state claims in original federal suit or be barred from subsequent litigation in state court).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Floyd R. Brown
v.
Federated Department Stores, Inc., Dba I. Magnin & Co., and Bullocks Northern California Saks & Company Dba Saks Fifth Avenue and Does I Through Xx
77-3101.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jul 30, 1981.
653 F.2d 1266
Published

653 F.2d 1266

1981-2 Trade Cases 64,234

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.

No. 77-3101.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

July 30, 1981.

Before WRIGHT and TANG, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, Senior District judge.

In Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 2424, 68 L.Ed.2d ---- (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 1B Moore's Federal Practice P 0.410(2) 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.

1

The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.