Du v. Sunol Molecular Corporation
1:09-cv-11797
| D. Mass. | Sep 13, 2012Background
- Du/Ge sued Sunol for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and intentional infliction of emotional distress after Sunol sought relocation benefits in arbitration and Florida actions.
- Du relocated for employment; arbitration awarded Sunol relocation benefits and bonuses when Du resigned within a year.
- Arbitration award was confirmed by Florida court after notices were found proper; Florida judgment later affirmed on appeal.
- Massachusetts suit sought to collect the Florida-affirmed award; Middlesex Superior Court granted Sunol summary judgment enforcing the award.
- Plaintiffs argue Sunol acted with malicious intent across actions in multiple jurisdictions; defendant moves for issue preclusion to bar relitigation.
- Court concludes issue preclusion precludes relitigation of the arbitration award’s validity; grants Sunol final judgment on Counts V, pending counterclaim resolution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether issue preclusion bars relitigation of arbitration validity | Du/Ge contend issues differ, not precluded due to forum variance. | Sunol argues final Florida judgment on arbitration validity precludes relitigation in MA. | Yes; issue preclusion applies to arbitration validity. |
| Whether Sunol’s conduct supports malicious prosecution claim | Sunol acted with improper purpose across proceedings. | Judgments validate Sunol’s claim; no improper motive shown. | No; elements not satisfied. |
| Whether Sunol’s conduct supports abuse of process claim | Process used for ulterior purpose across actions. | Prior litigation upheld as valid; no ulterior purpose shown. | No; claim precluded by prior adjudication. |
| Whether Sunol’s pursuit of the judgment supports an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim | Sunol’s actions caused severe distress to Du/Ge. | Standard is extreme and outrageous conduct; here none. | No; conduct insufficiently extreme or outrageous. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Sonus Networks, Inc., Shareholder Derivative Litigation, 499 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2007) (establishes standard for issue preclusion in federal cases)
- Kobrin v. Bd. of Registration in Med., 444 Mass. 837 (Mass. 2005) (elements of issue preclusion in Massachusetts)
- Billings v. Commerce Ins. Co., 936 N.E.2d 408 (Mass. 2008) (malicious prosecution elements in Massachusetts)
- Psy-Ed Corp. v. Klein, 947 N.E.2d 520 (Mass. 2011) (abuse of process standards and ulterior purpose)
- Beecy v. Pucciarelli, 441 N.E.2d 1035 (Mass. 1982) (illegitimate purposes in abuse of process context)
- Conners v. Billerica Police Dept., 679 F. Supp. 2d 218 (D. Mass. 2010) (high threshold for intentional infliction of emotional distress)