Jefftex International Ltd. v. JPI Trading Corp., 031610 FED2, 09-2544-cv
|Party Name:||JEFFTEX INTERNATIONAL LTD., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JPI TRADING CORP. and JOSEPH SAFDIEH, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Attorney:||FOR APPELLANT: STEWART W. LEE (Steven Weinberg, on the brief), Gottesman, Wolgel, Malamy, Flynn & Weinberg P.C., New York, NY. FOR APPELLEES: THOMAS G. CARULLI, Kaplan Massamillo & Andrews, New York, NY.|
|Judge Panel:||PRESENT: PIERRE N. LEVAL, ROBERT D. SACK, RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||March 16, 2010|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit|
Rulings by summary order do not have precedential effect. Citation to a summary order filed on or after January 1, 2007, is permitted and is governed by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 and this court's Local Rule 32.1.1. When citing a summary order in a document filed with this court, a party must cite either the Federal Appendix or an electronic database (with the notation "summary order"). A party citing a summary order must serve a copy of it on any party not represented by counsel.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York, on the 16th day of March, two thousand and ten.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Griesa, J.).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York be AFFIRMED.
Plaintiff-appellant Jefftex International Ltd. ("Jefftex") appeals the district court's dismissal of its claims based on the doctrine of res judicata. We presume the parties' familiarity with the facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal.
We review de novo a district court's dismissal of a complaint based on the preclusive effect of a state-court judgment. Conopco, Inc. v. Roll Int'l, 231 F.3d 82, 86 (2d Cir. 2000). The Full Faith and Credit Clause requires that we apply the preclusion law of the state that rendered the judgment; in this case, New York. See id. at 87; see also U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1; 28 U.S.C. § 1738. New York takes a transactional approach to res judicata. "[O]nce a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transaction or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP