Fiumara v. SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY, 16635.
| Decision Date | 17 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 16635.,16635. |
| Citation | 385 F.2d 395 |
| Parties | Pasquale FIUMARA, Appellant, v. SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
A. E. Hurshman, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.
Robert W. Sayre, Saul, Ewing, Remick & Saul, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee.
Before McLAUGHLIN, KALODNER and GANEY, Circuit Judges.
The District Court granted summary judgment against plaintiff-appellant in this action for malicious abuse of civil process and bad faith, as part of a price fixing conspiracy, in ending plaintiff's franchise to sell defendant's product. The litigation based on the mentioned allegations goes back to 1961. Prior to that date defendant had sued plaintiff for selling its gasoline below its minimum dealer resale prices. Before the final disposition of that action the contract between the parties had been terminated and Sinclair's suit was dismissed as moot.
In 1961 appellant filed his first complaint against appellee in the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court for malicious use of process. That was founded on Sinclair's referred to suit and its termination of its contract with appellant. Judgment on the pleadings was entered in favor of Sinclair. There was no appeal. While appellant's first complaint was still pending, he filed another complaint in the Federal Court against Sinclair and other oil companies, asserting that Sinclair's action was part of a price fixing conspiracy among the oil companies. He also alleged that the termination of the said contract had been for the purpose of intimidating and coercing him from asserting his full rights against Sinclair and also in furtherance of the claimed conspiracy. The District Court granted summary judgment on the merits to the defendants. 204 F.Supp. 544 (E.D.Pa.1962). That was affirmed per curiam by this Court in 310 F.2d 737 (1962). Certiorari was denied by the United States Supreme Court 372 U.S. 976, 83 S.Ct. 1109, 10 L.Ed.2d 142 (1963). A similar case was started by appellant in the Philadelphia Common Pleas Court in 1963. That was removed to the Federal Court where summary judgment on the merits, based on res adjudicata, was granted the defendants by the District Court. Again there was no appeal. There was other litigation in various jurisdictions by appellant which need not be gone into here.
On July 20, 1966 he filed his present complaint in the District Court. In essence this is a reiteration of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J. Aron and Co., Inc. v. Service Transp. Co.
...Res Judicata/Preclusion by Judgment: The Law Applied in Federal Courts, 66 Mich.L.Rev. 1723 n.3 (1968), citing Fiumara v. Sinclair Refining Co., 385 F.2d 395 (3d Cir. 1967); Rhodes v. Jones, 351 F.2d 884 (8th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 919, 86 S.Ct. 914, 15 L.Ed.2d 673 (1966); Heasl......
-
Borough of Lansdale v. Philadelphia Elec. Co.
...identity of the causes of action in the first and second lawsuits, the doctrine of res judicata is inapplicable. Fiumara v. Sinclair Refining Co., 385 F.2d 395 (3d Cir. 1967). It is not sufficient that the causes of action are related; they must be so closely related that matters essential ......
-
Gambocz v. Yelencsics
...dismissed in the prior suit against the defendants John Ellmyer, Lillian Apel, Louis La Plaga and Marie Keller. Fiumara v. Sinclair Refining Co., 385 F.2d 395 (3d Cir. 1967). As to the defendants Yelencsics, Ferenczi, and the township,3 none of whom were parties to the first action, we must......