999 F.3d 534
8th Cir.2021Background
- Petitta underwent knee replacement in Texas in 2014 and alleges infection caused by 3M’s Bair Hugger device.
- He filed an individual complaint in the Bair Hugger MDL (D. Minn.) and a separate suit in Hidalgo County, Texas, within days of each other in November 2016.
- After 3M warned the claims were duplicative, Petitta agreed to dismiss the MDL case by stipulation “with prejudice” under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii); the MDL court terminated the case in April 2017.
- Petitta litigated in Texas for ~2 years; 3M later asserted a res judicata defense in state court and asked the MDL court to enjoin Petitta from pursuing the Texas action under the Anti‑Injunction Act’s relitigation exception.
- The MDL court granted a permanent injunction; the Eighth Circuit vacated the injunction, holding the stipulated MDL dismissal did not constitute a federal decision on the merits under Texas claim‑preclusion law.
Issues
| Issue | Petitta's Argument | 3M's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the MDL stipulation dismissing the federal case “with prejudice” was a federal decision on the merits that triggers the Anti‑Injunction Act’s relitigation exception | The stipulation was merely an agreement to dismiss (no settlement) and thus not a final judgment on the merits; state suit not precluded | The dismissal with prejudice precludes Petitta from relitigating the same claims in state court; relitigation exception permits injunction | Held for Petitta: under Texas law the stipulation was an agreement to dismiss, not a merits judgment, so the relitigation exception does not apply and injunction was vacated |
| Choice of law for determining preclusive effect of an MDL dismissal | Apply Texas law (the law that would govern the original venue and as specified by the MDL standing order) | 3M urged federal common law/substantive federal rule might apply | Held for Petitta: Texas claim‑preclusion law governs (MDL standing order and choice‑of‑law principles lead to Texas rule) |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Bayer Corp., 564 U.S. 299 (explains relitigation exception and requires strict, narrow application)
- Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140 (relitigation exception founded on res judicata/collateral estoppel)
- Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (preclusive effect of federal diversity judgments is governed by the law of the state where the federal court sits)
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (federal common law governs preclusion in federal‑question cases)
- Wahl v. Gen. Elec. Co., 786 F.3d 491 (MDL choice‑of‑law: avoid elevation of MDL forum law based on administrative convenience)
- In re Temporomandibular Joint Implants Prods. Liab. Litig., 97 F.3d 1050 (transferee MDL courts apply the state law that would have applied absent transfer)
- In re Volkswagen & Audi Warranty Extension Litig., 692 F.3d 4 (collecting MDL choice‑of‑law principles)
- Canady v. Allstate Ins. Co., 282 F.3d 1005 (resolve doubts in favor of allowing state courts to proceed when considering injunctions)
- Daewoo Elecs. Corp. of Am. v. W. Auto Supply Co., 975 F.2d 474 (relitigation exception requires that the federal court actually decided the claims at issue)
- Atlantic Coast Line R.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng’rs, 398 U.S. 281 (any doubts about issuing federal injunctions against state proceedings should favor permitting state courts to proceed)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Joachim, 315 S.W.3d 860 (Texas test for claim preclusion: prior final decision, identity/privity of parties, same claims)