554 F.2d 188 (5th Cir. 1977), 76-3035, Associates Capital Services Corp. v. Loftin's Transfer & Storage Co., Inc.

Docket Nº:76-3035
Citation:554 F.2d 188
Party Name:ASSOCIATES CAPITAL SERVICES CORPORATION, an Indiana Corporation, Assignee, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOFTIN'S TRANSFER & STORAGE COMPANY, INC., a corporation, d/b/a Mobilphone Systems, Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS & ELECTRONICS, INC., Third Party Defendant-Appellee.
Case Date:June 16, 1977
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 188

554 F.2d 188 (5th Cir. 1977)

ASSOCIATES CAPITAL SERVICES CORPORATION, an Indiana

Corporation, Assignee, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

LOFTIN'S TRANSFER & STORAGE COMPANY, INC., a corporation,

d/b/a Mobilphone Systems, Defendant-Third Party

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS & ELECTRONICS, INC., Third Party

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 76-3035

[*]

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

June 16, 1977

Bruce J. Downey, III, Montgomery, Ala., for Loftin's Transfer & Storage Co., Inc.

Charles P. Miller, Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee.

J. Knox Argo, Montgomery, Ala., for Motorola Communications, etc.

Appeal from the United State District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

Page 189

Before THORNBERRY, RONEY and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff, an Indiana corporation, brought this action in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama to collect contract payments allegedly due and owing from defendant. Defendant claimed that plaintiff's failure to qualify to do business in Alabama barred prosecution of the suit. The district court held that plaintiff was not "doing business," within the meaning of Alabama law, and consequently permitted it to maintain the suit. We affirm.

It is well settled law that if a plaintiff is prohibited from maintaining an action in a state court because of its failure to qualify to do business within the state, it is barred from prosecuting its claim as a diversity action in a federal district court. Advance Industrial Security, Inc. v. William J. Burns International Detective Agency, Inc., 377 F.2d 236, 239 (5th Cir. 1967).

Defendant argues that plaintiff is collaterally estopped by the district court's prior adverse decision of the doing business issue in Associates Capital Services Corp. v. Raybon, C.A. No. 74-286-N (M.D.Ala. May 8, 1975). On appeal this case was remanded to the district court in accordance with the stipulation of the parties, and settled in favor of plaintiff. Associates Capital Services Corp. v. Raybon, C.A. No. 74-286-N (M.D.Ala. Dec. 8, 1976), enforcing No. 76-2481 (5th Cir. Nov. 22, 1976). Therefore, the decision of the district court spawned no precedential effect and renders nugatory the question of collateral estoppel. Cf. De Nafo v. Finch, 436 F.2d 737 (3d Cir. 1971); see generally, 50...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP