Atwater v. Driscoll, 730 F.3d 58

Atwater was a Massachusetts teacher with professional status who was dismissed for conduct unbecoming a teacher in March 2005.
He pursued review via arbitration under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 71, §42, culminating in a private arbitrator’s decision affirming dismissal.
On August 4, 2006, Atwater filed state-court suit challenging the dismissal and seeking to vacate the arbitration decision.
On August 30, 2006, Atwater filed this federal case asserting six claims (three state-law, three federal-law).
The federal case alleged England reservation attempts, while the state court later noted that Atwater reserved federal claims for federal adjudication; the district court stayed/dismissed proceedings pending state proceedings.
After state-court adjudication upheld the arbitrator’s decision, the district court granted summary judgment based on res judicata and Atwater appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether England reservation salvages federal claims from res judicata	Atwater asserts England reservation allows federal claims to proceed in federal court	District court and defendants contend England reservation requires a Pullman abstention framework not satisfied here	England reservation not applicable
Whether Massachusetts law reservation (Restatement §26(1)(b)) applies to preserve federal claims	Atwater relies on express reservation by state courts to allow second action	Massachusetts law does not treat the situation as an express reservation under §26(1)(b)	Massachusetts would not treat it as express reservation
Whether equitable considerations override res judicata	Equity favors allowing federal claims to proceed	Res judicata should be applied to prevent relitigation	Equity does not defeat res judicata here
Whether the district court’s closure order resembled a Pullman abstention	Closure order functionally resembled Pullman but not in form	Order was not a Pullman abstention, thus England reservation inapplicable	Not a Pullman abstention; England reservation inapplicable
Whether the state-court judgment precludes federal claims under res judicata	Federal claims should be allowed despite state judgment	Res judicata bars federal claims	Massachusetts res judicata bars federal claims

England v. Louisiana State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 375 F.2d 411 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1964) (England reservation allows federal claims after Pullman abstention in limited circumstances)
Geiger v. Foley Hoag LLP Ret. Plan, 521 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2008) (limits England reservation scope under First Circuit precedent)
Duty Free Shop, Inc. v. Admin. De Terrenos De P.R., 889 F.2d 1181 (1st Cir. 1989) (England reservation doctrine; abstention context)
Rivera-Feliciano v. Acevedo-Vila, 438 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2006) (limitations on abstention and reservation)
Barreto-Rosa v. Varona-Mendez, 470 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2006) (requirements for England reservation effectiveness)
Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (1980) (restatement of res judicata principles in federal context)
Perroncello v. Donahue, 835 N.E.2d 256 (Mass. App. Ct. 2005) ( Restatement §26(1)(b) discussion (Mass. law context))
Thomas v. Contoocook Valley Sch. Dist., 150 F.3d 31 (1st Cir. 1998) (express reservation under state law avoided res judicata)
Dodd v. Hood River County, 59 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 1995) (Restatement §26(1)(b) reservation concept (Oregon law))