Case ID: f-appx_322/html/0808-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TIECO, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. USX CORPORATION, a corporation, Robert E. Hilton, James B. Wager, individually and in his official capacity as the former Audit Manager of the Division of USX Corporation, Kenneth Falls, individually and in his official capacity as Tractor Shop Coordinator, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-16203
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    April 7, 2009.
    J. Mark White, Linda G. Flippo, William M. Bowen, Jr., Andrew C. Allen, White, Arnold, Andrews & Dowd, P.C., Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    June Ann Sauntry, John J. Dalton, Troutman Sanders, Atlanta, GA, John A. Earnhardt, H. Thomas Wells, Jr., Maynard, Cooper & Gale, P.C., Jere F. White, Jr., Sara Anne Ford, Lightfoot, Franklin & White, L.L.C., Birmingham, AL, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before BIRCH, HULL, and HILL, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

This appeal challenges the district court’s dismissal of this action after entry of judgment on the pleadings for defendant, USX Corporation. The district court entered this judgment after review of the underlying complaint, concluding that plaintiff seeks in this action to relitigate issues already decided against plaintiff on appeal to this court in an earlier action, and reaffirmed by this court in its affirmation of the denial of plaintiff’s Rule 60 motion for a new trial. The district court in this case concluded that the issues raised here were either brought in the previous ease or could have been brought therein. Accordingly, applying the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel, the district court dismissed this action. Finding no error in this disposition of the case, we

AFFIRM. 
      
      . To the extent that plaintiff's complaint alleges a new claim for the independent tort of spoliation, the district court correctly con-eluded that Alabama law does not recognize that claim as asserted here.