James Dunlap v. Cottman Transmissions Systems
689 F. App'x 188
4th Cir.2017Background
- James M. Dunlap (pro se) appealed the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing his suit as barred by res judicata.
- Several prior related lawsuits had been adjudicated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; the district court applied Pennsylvania law to determine preclusive effect.
- Dunlap argued on appeal that res judicata was inappropriately applied; most arguments were raised for the first time on appeal and were not considered.
- The primary contested factual point preserved on appeal was Dunlap’s contention that the parties in the prior suits differed from the current defendants.
- The court examined privity among corporate entities and individuals (two wholly owned subsidiaries, their parent, and a shared president) and found a close/significant relationship supporting claim preclusion.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order, concluding the parties were in privity and res judicata barred Dunlap’s claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res judicata bars Dunlap's suit | Prior suits involved different parties, so res judicata shouldn't apply | Prior judgments bind Dunlap because successive defendants are in privity with earlier defendants | Res judicata applies; prior judgments preclude the suit |
| Whether appellate consideration should include new arguments | New arguments on appeal show trial error | Issues were not raised below; appellate review is improper | Court declined to consider issues raised first on appeal |
| Standard for determining privity among corporate parties | Different corporate defendants are separate entities | Wholly owned subsidiaries, parent, and shared officers are in privity | Privity exists due to close/significant relationships among entities and officers |
| Choice of law for preclusive effect | (implicit) State law governs preclusive effect | Preclusive effect governed by law of the state where prior federal district court sat | Pennsylvania law governs; applied to determine preclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Balent v. City of Wilkes-Barre, 669 A.2d 309 (Pa. 1995) (final judgment precludes future suits between parties or their privies on same cause of action)
- Lubrizol Corp. v. Exxon Corp., 929 F.2d 960 (3d Cir. 1991) (res judicata applies when there is a close or significant relationship between successive defendants)
- Bruszewski v. United States, 181 F.2d 419 (3d Cir. 1950) (broad definition of privity where plaintiff repeatedly sues related defendants)
- Gambocz v. Yelencsics, 468 F.2d 837 (3d Cir. 1972) (privity doctrine supports preclusion across related parties)
- Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246 (4th Cir. 1993) (issues raised for first time on appeal generally not considered)