1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES COLLINS, : 

:

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : No. 05-cv-1853

:

PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL, and :

BARNETT INTERNATIONAL, :

:

Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

Joyner, J. October 30, 2008

Before this Court is Plaintiff, Collins’s, Motion for the

Application of Collateral Estoppel (Doc. No. 80) on five issues,

and Defendants, Parexel and Barnett’s, response thereto (Doc. No.

93). For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is denied.

I. Background

James Collins originally brought the present action with

Plaintiff Jeff Klimaski in January 2005 for retaliatory discharge

and, later, for defamation against their former employer, Parexel

International (“Parexel”). Relatedly, after Parexel brought suit

against him, another Parexel employee who had been terminated,

Mr. Oswaldo Feliciano, made counter-claims against Parexel

alleging violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (“SOX”) and illegal

conduct surrounding his termination. Collins and Klimaski later

moved to consolidate their claims with Feliciano’s, but this

Case 2:05-cv-01853-JCJ Document 96 Filed 10/31/08 Page 1 of 6
2

Court found that each claim required a separate analysis and

ordered severance of all plaintiffs. Klimaski v. Parexel Int’l,

2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6403, 2005 WL 857350 (E.D. Pa. April 4,

2005). 

Mr. Feliciano’s case was the first to go to trial. On

September 15, 2008, Parexel was found by a jury to have (1)

retaliated against Mr. Feliciano in violation of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002 and (2) to have terminated Mr. Feliciano’s

employment because he refused to engage in illegal conduct. Pl.

Exh. A (Verdict Slip, Feliciano v. Parexel, No. 04-3798). In the

instant motion, Collins now asks this Court to grant collateral

estoppel as to five issues he alleges were already decided by the

jury in Mr. Feliciano’s case: (1) Collins’s belief that Parexel’s

conduct with respect to the marketing database constituted a

violation of federal mail, wire, or securities fraud was

reasonable; (2) Collins engaged in protected activity under SOX

when he complained about the fraudulent use of the database; (3)

Parexel has been found to have violated SOX; (4) Parexel is

precluded from cross-examining or impeaching Feliciano on

Parexel’s purported reasons for his termination; (5) The only

reason that can be presented to the jury on Feliciano’s

termination is that Parexel unlawfully retaliated against him in

violation of SOX. 

Case 2:05-cv-01853-JCJ Document 96 Filed 10/31/08 Page 2 of 6
3

II. Standard

Plaintiff, a non-party to the previous action, asks this

Court to give preclusive effect to issues he is alleging in the

instant action against the defendants, parties to the previous

action. This form of issue preclusion, non-mutual offensive

collateral estoppel, may only be used in distinct circumstances. 

Four criteria must be met for collateral estoppel to be used

offensively:

(1) the issue sought to be precluded [is] the same as

that involved in the prior action; 

(2) that issue [was] actually litigated; 

(3) that issue [was] determined by a final and valid

judgment; and 

(4) the determination [was] essential to the prior

judgment.

AMTRAK v. Pa. PUC, 342 F.3d 242, 252 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting

AMTRAK v. Pa. PUC, 288 F.3d 519, 525 (3d Cir. 2002) (citations

omitted)). As an added safeguard, the Supreme Court has held

that the use of this preclusion would be “subjected to an

overriding fairness determination by the trial judge.” 

Burlington N. R.R. v. Hyundai Merchant Marine Co., 63 F.3d 1227,

1232 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing to Parklane Hosiery v. Shore, 439

U.S. 322, 324, 326-33, 58 L. Ed. 2d 552, 99 S. Ct. 645 (1979)). 

III. Discussion

Plaintiff argues that the first three issues for which he is

Case 2:05-cv-01853-JCJ Document 96 Filed 10/31/08 Page 3 of 6
(1) Collins’s belief that Parexel’s conduct with respect to the 1

marketing database constituted a violation of federal mail, wire, or

securities fraud was reasonable; (2) Collins engaged in protected activity

under SOX when he complained about the fraudulent use of the database; (3)

Parexel has been found to have violated SOX.

4

seeking collateral estoppel fall directly under the jury’s 1

findings for issues litigated in the Feliciano case, were

essential to the prior judgments, and, therefore, can be used to

preclude defendants from arguing them in the present case as to

Mr. Collins. However, the issues decided by the jury are

entirely tied to Mr. Feliciano and are distinct from the issues

raised by Mr. Collins. In fact, Mr. Feliciano and Mr. Collins

were not permitted to consolidate their claims by this Court

because the cases were so factually distinct and required

separate analyses. Klimaski, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS at *9-10 (“ .

. . the circumstances of each party's termination are factually

distinct. A determination of whether Defendant Parexel

discharged Klimaski, Collins, or Feliciano in retaliation for

reporting activities protected by the Sarbanes Oxley Act requires

a separate analysis of each party's work performance,

qualifications, and the actions taken against him.”). Hence, the

jury’s verdict in Mr. Feliciano’s case is specific to Mr.

Feliciano and cannot be applied to the issues of Mr. Collins’s

beliefs, whether Mr. Collins engaged in protected activity and

whether Parexel violated SOX in relation to Mr. Collins. Pl.

Exh. A (Verdict Slip, Feliciano v. Parexel, No. 04-3798). None

Case 2:05-cv-01853-JCJ Document 96 Filed 10/31/08 Page 4 of 6
(4) Parexel is precluded from cross-examining or impeaching Feliciano 2

on Parexel’s purported reasons for his termination; (5) The only reason that

can be presented to the jury on Feliciano’s termination is that Parexel

unlawfully retaliated against him in violation of SOX. 

5

of these issues was decided by the jury. As the first criteria

for issue preclusion is that the issue must be the same issue as

in the prior action, these issues are not appropriate for

collateral estoppel. AMTRAK, 342 F.3d at 252. 

The final two issues for which plaintiff seeks collateral

estoppel involve possible references at trial to the verdict in 2

Mr. Feliciano’s case. However, these are not facts specifically

at issue in Mr. Collins’s claims and are, hence, inappropriate

for the application of collateral estoppel. It appears to the

Court that these two issues would only arise in relation to

possible witness testimony from Mr. Feliciano or others about

Mr. Feliciano’s termination and the September 15 verdict. th

However, clearly, if Mr. Feliciano testifies at trial, he will be

testifying for limited purposes –- only in so far as his

testimony is relevant to Mr. Collins’s allegations. See Fed. R.

Evid. 401-403. The admissibility of references to Mr.

Feliciano’s verdict will be determined on the basis of relevancy

and prejudice, likely as objections at trial or motions in

limine, and not on collateral estoppel. Id.

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion is Denied.

Case 2:05-cv-01853-JCJ Document 96 Filed 10/31/08 Page 5 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES COLLINS, : 

:

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. : No. 05-cv-1853

:

PAREXEL INTERNATIONAL, and :

BARNETT INTERNATIONAL, :

:

Defendants. :

ORDER

 AND NOW, this 30th day of October, 2008, upon

consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion for the Application for

Collateral Estoppel (Doc. No. 80), and Plaintiff’s Response

thereto (Doc. No. 93), for the reasons stated in the attached

memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. 

BY THE COURT:

s/J. Curtis Joyner 

J. CURTIS JOYNER, J.

Case 2:05-cv-01853-JCJ Document 96 Filed 10/31/08 Page 6 of 6