Brown v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc., 77-3101
| Decision Date | 30 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-3101,77-3101 |
| Citation | 653 F.2d 1266 |
| Parties | 1981-2 Trade Cases 64,234 Floyd R. BROWN, Appellant, v. FEDERATED DEPARTMENT STORES, INC., dba I. Magnin & Co., and Bullocks Northern California; Saks & Company dba Saks Fifth Avenue; and Does I through XX, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before WRIGHT and TANG, Circuit Judges, and JAMESON, Senior District judge.
reversed our decision in Moitie v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 611 F.2d 1267 (1980), and remanded for proceedings in conformity with its opinion. We now affirm the decision of the district court dismissing the action on the basis of res judicata.
The only issue unresolved by the Court's opinion is whether Brown presented state law claims that are not barred by res judicata.
We held:
Appellants first contend that removal was improper because they stated a valid state claim. We disagree. The court below correctly held that the claims presented were federal in nature, arising solely from price fixing on defendants' part.
611 F.2d at 1268. Since this holding was not reversed, the law of the case is that Brown presented no valid state law claims.
Even if he did, they are barred. A judgment on the merits is an absolute bar to a subsequent action between the same parties on the same claim. See 1B Moore's Federal Practice P 0.410(2) at 1163; Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 61 (Tent. Draft No. 5, March 10, 1978). Two claims are the same if they arise from the same transactions or events. Id.
The federal antitrust claim in Brown I and the state law claims in Brown II arise from the same transactions. See 611 F.2d at 1268. It is not clear that the district court in Brown I would have refused to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims. See --- U.S. at ----, 101 S.Ct. at 2430 (Blackmun, J., concurring). The state law claims are barred by res judicata.
The decision of the district court is AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Salveson v. Western States Bankcard Ass'n
...defendant in federal court: plaintiff must "join all relevant theories of relief in a single proceeding"); Brown v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 653 F.2d 1266 (9th Cir. 1981) (Ninth Circuit, on remand from Moitie, supra, disposed of the state law claims in Brown by saying that even if......
-
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Sarkisian
...federal to have justified removal and hence to be barred by res judicata under the Supreme Court's holding. Brown v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 653 F.2d 1266 (9th Cir.1981). The Ninth Circuit concluded that all four claims were federal claims, artfully pled. For the reasons stated a......
-
Derish v. San Mateo-Burlingame Bd. of Realtors
...on the merits is an absolute bar to a subsequent action between the same parties on the same claim." Brown v. Federated Department Stores, Inc., 653 F.2d 1266, 1267 (9th Cir.), on remand from Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 101 S.Ct. 2424, 69 L.Ed.2d 103 (1981); a......
-
Musa v. Gillett Communications, Inc.
...1981), 657 F.2d 939, 945.29 Id; see, also, Matter of Energy Co-op., Inc. (C.A.7, 1987), 814 F.2d 1226, 1230; Brown v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc. (C.A.9, 1981), 653 F.2d 1266, 1267.30 See Young Engineers, Inc. v. U.S. Internatl. Trade Comm. (Fed.Cir.1983), 721 F.2d 1305, 1315. As it pertai......