Jeffrey R. Cooper v. Phillip Glasser
419 S.W.3d 924
Tenn.2013Background
- Cooper filed a California state court complaint against the Glassers for fraud-related claims and related remedies; a forum clause directed disputes to Tennessee, and Cooper dismissed California action without prejudice.
- Cooper promptly filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee alleging federal and state securities-law claims; Glasser moved to dismiss on SOL grounds; Cooper dismissed without court approval under Rule 41(a)(1).
- Cooper later filed a Tennessee circuit-court action asserting only three state-law claims (fraud, promissory estoppel, breach of contract) previously dismissed in California and federal court.
- Glassers moved for summary judgment contending that Cooper’s second federal dismissal bars refiling based on the same claims; court held Rule 41(a)(1)(B) governs preclusion for the federal action.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court must determine whether Tennessee claim-preclusion law or federal claim-preclusion law governs the effect of Cooper’s federal dismissals on refiling in Tennessee state court.
- Court holds Tennessee law governs preclusion here and that Cooper may refile in Tennessee; reverses Court of Appeals and remands for proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What law governs claim preclusion for refiling after federal dismissals | Cooper argues Tennessee law applies to refiling. | Glassers contend federal preclusion law applies due to federal-question jurisdiction. | Tennessee law governs preclusion; refiling allowed. |
| Did Cooper’s second federal dismissal bar state-court refiling | Second dismissal is not a merits adjudication under Tennessee law. | Second dismissal triggers preclusion under federal rule. | Not barred; not a merits adjudication under Tennessee law. |
| Does Semtek control the preclusion outcome for supplemental state-law claims in federal court | Semtek governs how dismissals affect later state proceedings. | Semtek limited to diversity/diversity-like contexts. | Semtek guides, but Tennessee law ultimately governs refiling; Semtek supports state-law approach. |
Key Cases Cited
- Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (2001) (clarifies that dismissal on the merits in diversity cases triggers state-law preclusion unless federal interests prevail)
- Felder v. Casey, 487 U.S. 131 (1988) (Erie concerns; federal courts apply state substantive law in certain contexts)
- Shady Grove Orthopedic Assocs. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 559 U.S. 393 (2010) (limits on applying federal rules in state courts; Erie considerations)
- Styskal v. Weld Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Cmm’rs, 365 F.3d 855 (10th Cir. 2004) (dismissal based on procedural ground unlikely to preclude state action)