Lary v. Ansari

Decision Date01 June 1987
Docket NumberNo. 86-7416,86-7416
Citation817 F.2d 1521
PartiesRICO Bus.Disp.Guide 6661 John H. LARY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mansour ANSARI; Ahmad Momeni; Mansour Ansari Oriental Rugs, Inc., a Georgia corporation; Momeni, Inc., a New York Corp., Defendants-Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Hurt, Richardson, Garner, Todd & Cadenhead, Stephen E. O'Day, Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

Before GODBOLD, VANCE and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John Lary brought this RICO action against Mansour Ansari, Mansour Ansari Oriental Rugs, Inc., Ahmad Momeni, and Momeni, Inc. The district court granted summary judgment to all defendants on the grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel. We affirm as to defendants Ansari and Mansour Ansari Oriental Rugs, Inc. and reverse and remand as to defendants Momeni and Momeni, Inc.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In 1978 Lary and Ansari entered into a business relationship under which they bought and sold oriental rugs. Lary provided the capital for the business, and Ansari, who was experienced in the oriental rug business, managed the business. In December 1980 Lary and Ansari entered into a written termination agreement in which Lary agreed, among other things, not to bring an action against Ansari for any claims arising out of their former business relationship.

Lary filed an action in federal court against Ansari in 1983, alleging fraud and breach of agreements between the parties concerning their former business relationship. The district judge instructed the jury that it could not reach the merits of Lary's claims unless it first found that the covenant not to sue in the termination agreement was void and unenforceable. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of Ansari. No appeal was taken from the ensuing judgment.

Lary brought the present action in 1985. Although couched in terms of RICO, the action does not differ from Lary's fraud claim in his previous suit against Ansari. Lary alleges that although Ansari had agreed in their original business arrangement not to engage in other business activities or to compete with the business, he sold oriental rugs "on the side" and kept the profits for himself. Lary further alleges that Momeni and Momeni, Inc. conspired with Ansari to supply him with the rugs that he sold for his own account.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action, which the district court treated as a motion for summary judgment. 1 After a full hearing the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the claim against Ansari was barred by res judicata and the claim against the remaining defendants was barred by collateral estoppel. Lary appeals from this judgment.

ANSARI AND MANSOUR ANSARI ORIENTAL RUGS, INC.

The court held that Lary's RICO claim against Ansari was barred by res judicata. Under the doctrine of res judicata (or claim preclusion), a final judgment on the merits bars the parties from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in the previous action. I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat'l Bank, 793 F.2d 1541, 1549 (11th Cir.1986). For a prior judgment to bar a subsequent action, four elements must be present: "(1) there must be a final judgment on the merits, (2) the decision must be rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) the parties, or those in privity with them, must be identical in both suits; and (4) the same cause of action must be involved in both cases." Id.

The first three elements are clearly met--a final judgment on the merits was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction in Lary's action against Ansari in 1983. The only issue is whether the cause of action asserted in this action is the same as that involved in the earlier lawsuit. We find that it is.

In his first lawsuit Lary alleged that Ansari had fraudulently induced him to enter into a too-favorable termination agreement, breached provisions of the termination agreement relating to the recovery of certain rugs and payments due Lary, defrauded him by improperly withdrawing funds from their oriental rug business, and defrauded him by selling oriental rugs for his own account and not depositing those funds in the business account and by concealing that fact when they negotiated the termination agreement.

Because Lary had an opportunity in his first lawsuit to litigate claims relating to his business relationship with Ansari, any future claims relating to the same business relationship are barred by res judicata. Although styled as a RICO claim, the complaint here relies on the same allegations of misconduct by Ansari as did the prior suit. The present action against Ansari is therefore barred by res judicata.

Lary contends that there is another element to this suit against Ansari that could not have been brought in the first suit, and therefore he is saved from the res judicata bar. In his amended complaint he alleged that Ansari had violated the termination agreement by refusing to exchange certain oriental rugs in March and April of 1986. 2 If Lary intended to pursue this amended claim as an independent cause of action, it would not be barred by res judicata. As Lary essentially admits in his brief on appeal, however, the only purpose of the amended claim is to get around the barrier posed by the covenant not to sue in the termination agreement so that he can litigate the underlying fraud claim. 3 Lary's action against Ansari is therefore barred by res judicata, and the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Ansari. 4

Mansour Ansari Oriental Rugs, Inc. did not come into existence until after Lary and Ansari had terminated their business relationship. It could not have participated in any conspiracy during their business relationship. Lary explained at the hearing on the defendants' motion for summary judgment that he named the corporation as a defendant because it was simply a continuation, in corporate form, of Ansari's oriental rug business. The corporation was therefore in privity with Ansari, and Lary's action against it is barred by res judicata. See I.A. Durbin, Inc., 793 F.2d at 1549; Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, 511 F.2d 710, 719 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 908, 96 S.Ct. 210, 46 L.Ed.2d 137 (1975). 5

MOMENI AND MOMENI, INC.

The district court held that Lary's action against Momeni and Momeni, Inc. was barred by collateral estoppel. Collateral estoppel (or issue...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Knight v. State of Ala.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • December 30, 1991
    ...582, 587 (11th Cir.1983). Clearly, res judicata applies to persons who were actually parties in the previous litigation. Lary v. Ansari, 817 F.2d 1521, 1523 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 964, 108 S.Ct. 454, 98 L.Ed.2d 394 (1987). The doctrine also applies to persons who are in privity......
  • In re Remington Park Owners Ass'n, Inc., Case No. 14–71894–FJS
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • March 24, 2016
  • Graham v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • May 18, 2017
    ...Chew v. Gates, 27 F.3d 1432, 1438 (9th Cir. 1994) ; Dodge v. Cotter Corp., 203 F.3d 1190, 1198–99 (10th Cir. 2000) ; Lary v. Ansari, 817 F.2d 1521, 1524–25 (11th Cir. 1987) ; Moody v. Rambo, 727 So.2d 116, 118 (Ala. Civ. App. 1998) ; JeToCo Corp. v. Hailey Sales Co., 268 Ark. 340, 596 S.W.2......
  • N.A.A.C.P. v. Hunt
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • January 16, 1990
    ...two sets of persons. The first set is comprised of those persons who were actual parties in the original action. Lary v. Ansari, 817 F.2d 1521, 1523 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 964, 108 S.Ct. 454, 98 L.Ed.2d 394 (1987). Appellant Alvin Holmes clearly falls into this category. He was......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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