Collegesource, Inc. v. Academyone, Inc.
709 F. App'x 440
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- CollegeSource sued AcademyOne in California alleging misappropriation and violations of California statute; AcademyOne moved for summary judgment on res judicata grounds based on a prior Pennsylvania action.
- The Pennsylvania action involved related claims between the same parties and culminated in a judgment adverse to CollegeSource.
- AcademyOne raised res judicata for the first time on summary judgment in the California case; CollegeSource contended this defense was waived and that its California claims were not precluded.
- CollegeSource sought discovery of materials considered by AcademyOne’s expert; the district court denied that request as irrelevant to the surviving issues.
- CollegeSource also argued it had a Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial on the res judicata question.
- The district court granted summary judgment for AcademyOne on res judicata grounds; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver of res judicata defense | AcademySource argued AcademyOne waived the defense by not pleading it in the Answer | AcademyOne argued defense was unavailable when Answer was filed and was raised promptly once available | No waiver; raising at summary judgment was permissible and not prejudicial |
| Who bears burden to show lack of full and fair opportunity | CollegeSource argued it lacked full and fair opportunity in Pennsylvania | AcademyOne argued CollegeSource had full and fair opportunity and bears burden to prove otherwise | Court placed burden on CollegeSource and found it failed to show lack of full and fair opportunity |
| Standard for full and fair opportunity | CollegeSource argued Blonder-Tongue standard should not apply | AcademyOne relied on preclusion principles and adequacy of prior proceedings | Court used Kremer (due process) standard (noting Blonder-Tongue applied more rigorously) but found CollegeSource had adequate procedures and appellate review |
| Claim preclusion scope (claims not litigated in Pennsylvania) | CollegeSource said misappropriation and CA statutory claims could not have been brought in Pennsylvania | AcademyOne argued all claims arose from same transactional nucleus of facts and thus were precluded | Claims barred: unlitigated claims arising from same transaction/nucleus were precluded; no second bite at the apple |
| Discovery of expert materials | CollegeSource argued denial prejudiced its ability to oppose summary judgment | AcademyOne argued materials were irrelevant to California Action claims/defenses | Denial affirmed; materials not relevant so no abuse of discretion |
| Seventh Amendment jury trial right | CollegeSource argued right to jury on res judicata question | AcademyOne argued preclusion presents mixed law-and-fact issues for judge | No Seventh Amendment right; judge decides preclusion as legal-predominant question |
Key Cases Cited
- Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp., 456 U.S. 461 (due process/full and fair opportunity standard for preclusion)
- Blonder-Tongue Laboratories v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 (rigorous standard for preclusion in some contexts)
- Turtle Island Restoration Network v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 673 F.3d 914 (transactional nucleus test for claim preclusion)
- Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080 (standards for disturbing discovery denials)
- Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (distinction between judge and jury functions)
- Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318 (preclusive effect is mixed question of law and fact)
- Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741 (judicial notice of court filings and public records)