Clark v. INDUSTRY AND LOCAL 338 PENSION, No. 83 Civ. 9298 (LFM).

CourtUnited States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
Writing for the CourtMacMAHON
PartiesWilliam G. CLARK, Plaintiff, v. INDUSTRY AND LOCAL 338 PENSION AND WELFARE FUND, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Defendant.
Decision Date06 December 1984
Docket NumberNo. 83 Civ. 9298 (LFM).

598 F. Supp. 365

William G. CLARK, Plaintiff,
v.
INDUSTRY AND LOCAL 338 PENSION AND WELFARE FUND, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, Defendant.

No. 83 Civ. 9298 (LFM).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

December 6, 1984.


598 F. Supp. 366

Cohen, Weiss & Simon by Stanley M. Berman and Jani K. Rachelson, New York City, for defendant.

Jordan & Walster, Montgomery Hollow by K. Randlett Walster, Roxbury, N.Y., for plaintiff.

OPINION

MacMAHON, District Judge.

Defendant moves for summary judgment, pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P. There are no material facts in issue. Defendant contends that plaintiff's claim is barred as a matter of law under the doctrine of res judicata. Alternatively, defendant contends that under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, plaintiff may not relitigate certain issues previously determined, and, accordingly, defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

This action arises from plaintiff's claim that he is owed past service credit under defendant's pension plan. The trustees of defendant Industry and Local 338 Pension Fund determined that plaintiff is entitled to seven years of past service credit for his nineteen years of employment at Matthew Brothers Inc.

On February 9, 1977, the New York State Insurance Department commenced an administrative proceeding against the trustees, alleging that they had violated New York Insurance Law Article III-A by failing to accord plaintiff past service credit for the full amount of his employment. The Insurance Department conducted a four-day evidentiary hearing, and on December 17, 1980 the Superintendent of Insurance decided against the trustees.

The trustees then brought a special Article 78 proceeding which was transferred to the Appellate Division, Second Department. On May 10, 1980, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the Superintendent had exceeded his jurisdiction because the trustees had carried out their duties in accordance with the requirements of the pension plan and there was no showing that those requirements were arbitrary or capricious. Heithaus v. Lewis, 86 A.D.2d 323, 450 N.Y.S.2d 32 (2d Dept. 1982).

598 F. Supp. 367

The doctrine of res judicata bars litigation of the same claim in a subsequent proceeding between the same parties or their privies with respect to issues actually decided as well as those which might have been decided. Winters v. Lavine, 574 F.2d 46, 55-56 (2d Cir.1978). Defendant argues that the instant complaint alleges the same claim as that determined by the Appellate Division in Heithaus v. Lewis, supra, namely, plaintiff's entitlement to past service pension credit, and, therefore, that plaintiff is bound by that earlier judgment. Plaintiff counters that his complaint is not precluded by the previous decision because (1) he was not a party or a "privy" to the earlier proceeding, and (2) the claims in the two proceedings are not the same.

PRIVITY

"It is a violation of due process for a judgment to be binding on a litigant who was not a party or a privy and therefore has never had an opportunity to be heard." Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority v. I.C.C., 718 F.2d 533, 542 (2d Cir.1983), citing Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 327 & n. 7, 99 S.Ct. 645, 649 & n. 7, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979). "Privity," for purposes of judicial finality, generally means:

"concurrent relationship to the same right of property; successive relationship to the same right of property; or representation of the interests of the same person."

Staten Island Rapid Transit Operating Authority v. I.C.C., supra, 718 F.2d...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Willoughby Roofing & Supply v. Kajima Intern., Civ. A. No. CV82-L-5556-NE.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • December 6, 1984
    ...when they resort to its machinery. American Almond Products Co. v. Consolidated Pecan Sales Co., Inc., 144 F.2d 448, 450 (2d Cir.1944). 598 F. Supp. 365 If parties to an arbitration agreement desire to exclude the issue of punitive damages from the consideration of an arbitrator and reserve......
  • Algie v. RCA Global Communications, Inc., No. 89 Civ. 5471 (MJL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • April 12, 1994
    ...21, 1988); Horger v. New York University Medical Center, 642 F.Supp. 976, 979 (S.D.N.Y.1986); Clark v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 598 F.Supp. 365, 367 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). See generally 1B Moore's Federal Practice, supra, ? 0.4111 at III-211, 215-18; Restatement (Second) of Judgments ?? 3......
2 cases
  • Willoughby Roofing & Supply v. Kajima Intern., Civ. A. No. CV82-L-5556-NE.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 11th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Alabama
    • December 6, 1984
    ...when they resort to its machinery. American Almond Products Co. v. Consolidated Pecan Sales Co., Inc., 144 F.2d 448, 450 (2d Cir.1944). 598 F. Supp. 365 If parties to an arbitration agreement desire to exclude the issue of punitive damages from the consideration of an arbitrator and reserve......
  • Algie v. RCA Global Communications, Inc., No. 89 Civ. 5471 (MJL).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • April 12, 1994
    ...21, 1988); Horger v. New York University Medical Center, 642 F.Supp. 976, 979 (S.D.N.Y.1986); Clark v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 598 F.Supp. 365, 367 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). See generally 1B Moore's Federal Practice, supra, ? 0.4111 at III-211, 215-18; Restatement (Second) of Judgments ?? 3......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT