In re Pan American Van Lines, Inc., B-173168
| Decision Date | 06 October 1977 |
| Docket Number | B-173168 |
| Citation | 57 Comp.Gen. 14 |
| Court | Comptroller General of the United States |
| Parties | IN THE MATTER OF PAN AMERICAN VAN LINES, INC. |
Courts - judgments, decrees, etc. - res judicata - subsequent claims shipment under a government bill of lading (GBL) is a single cause of action, and when a court judgment pertains to a particular GBL, the general accounting office (GAO) is precluded from considering a subsequent claim on the same GBL under the doctrine of res judicata. Claims - transportation - claim simultaneous with court action - res judicata doctrine applied after court adjudication when GAO makes no representations that it will consider a claim simultaneously submitted to it and a court of competent jurisdiction after the court has adjudicated the claim, GAO is not estopped from applying the doctrine of res judicata to the claim.
By letter of September 16, 1970, dean van lines, Inc., the former name of claimant pan American van lines, Inc., claimed payment from the finance center, transportation division U.S. Army, for transportation charges on 12 government bills of lading (gbls) covering shipments of household goods. That claim was referred to the general accounting office for direct settlement. By letter of October 14, 1971, our office informed dean that since all the gbls had been included in suits filed in the court of claims, we would take no further action regarding the claim but leave any amounts due dean to be finally determined by the court.
Judgment was rendered by the court of claims in the suits that contained the gbls upon which dean claimed. By letter of December 31, 1975, pan American again submitted to our office the original claim but added another GBL that was included in one of the suits covering the original 12 gbls. We declined to pay the claim on the basis of the doctrine of res judicata by letter of July 6, 1976. On April 28, 1977, claimant requests reconsideration, stating that the doctrine of res judicata was inapplicable to this situation.
The doctrine of res judicata
* * * provides that when a court of competent jurisdiction has entered a final judgment on the merits of a cause of action the parties to the suit and their provides are thereafter bound "not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose." Cromwell v. County of SAC, 94 U.S. 351 352. The judgment puts an end to the cause of action, which cannot again be brought into litigation between the parties upon any ground whatever, absent fraud or some other factor invalidating the judgment. See von moschzisker, "res judicata", 38 yale l.J. 299; restatement of the law of judgments, sections 47, 48. Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S 591, 597 (1948). Sea-land services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U.S 573, 578-579 (1974).
Parties are bound by a previous judgment on matters that May have been offered to sustain or defeat the cause of action involved in the judgment only if the claim presently being asserted is based on the same cause of action involved in the previous judgment. If the causes of action involved in the previous judgment and present claim are different, res judicata only applies to those issues actually adjudicated in the previous litigation. Pan American argues that the cause of action involved in the original claim and reasserted now is different from the cause of action involved in the court of claims' judgments even though the same GBL shipments are involved in both the claim and court of claims' judgments. Pan American argues further that the specific issue involved in its claim never was actually adjudicated in the previous litigation.
Container transport international, Inc. v. United States, 468 F.2d 926 ct.Cl., 1972), shows that the court of claims now regards a shipment under a GBL as a single cause of action, regardless of how many different kinds of transportation charges May be involved in the shipment. Therefore, since the gbls (causes of action) are the same in the prior suits and current...
To continue reading
Request your trial