2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 9-17-2009 

# V ic t or T ar t agli a v . B i son C omm Le a sing C orp P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-2443

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion
" V ict or T ar t agl i a v . B i s on C omm L e asin g C orp " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 647. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/6471 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 08- 2443 VI CT OR T AR T AGL I A, A p p e llan t v. B IS O N C O M M E R C IA L L E A S IN G C O R P .;

M IC H A E L B E R G ; W I LLI AM LI NK NER O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 2- 05- cv- 06004 D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e H ar ol d A . A ckerm an Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

Sept ember16, 2009 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R , F U E N T E S , a n d S M IT H , C i r cui tJudges

( Fi l ed: Sept ember17, 2009) OP I NI ON S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge. A p p e llan t V icto r T a rta g lia f iled a C o m p lain t alle g in g th a t th e A p p e llee s f o rg e d h is sig n a tu re o n c e rta in lea se d o c u m e n ts a n d in f late d th e v a lu e o f

c e rta in e q u ip m e n t u se d toT artag li a a lso a sserts fo r th e f ir st t im e o n ap p ea l th at 1) se v era l of h is cl aim s are 1 bas ed on evi dence di s cover ed s i nce the r es ol ut i on of the pr i ors t at e courtact i on, s o t hey ca n n o t be b arred b yco ll ateral estop p el or re s ju d ica ta ; an d 2 ) N e w Y o rk law p e rm its h im to se ek co n tr ibu ti o n n o tw ith stan d ing co ll ateral estop p el or re s ju d ica ta . A d d iti o n a lly , in h is re p lyb rie f

, T a rta g lia a rg u e s f

o r th e f irst tim e th a t th e A p p e llee s d id n o t ev e n se e k to d ism iss th e c o n trib u tio n a lleg a tio n c o n tain e d in h is C o m p lain t. T h e se a rg u m e n ts a re a ll w a iv e d . G as s v. V

. I . Tel
. C or p. , 3 1 1 F .3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (“ [ I]t is w e ll es t abl i s hed thatfai l ur e t o r ai s e an i s s ue i n t he di s t r i ctcour tcons t i tut es a w ai verof the a rg u m e n t.” (in ter n a l q u o tatio n s a n d c itatio n o m itt e d )); J o in t S to c k

S o c ’y v . U

D V N . A m ., I nc. , 2 6 6 F .3 d 1 6 4 , 1 7 8 n .9 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (“ B e c a u se th e p lain tiff s in th e p re se n t ca se d id n o t dev elop this argu m en t un ti l th eir replyb ri ef , w e d o n o t r eg ard itas p rop erlyb ef o re u s. ”). T he D i s t r i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1332( a) ( 1) , and w e have

2 j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. O urr evi ew of the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or dergr ant i ng A ppel l ees ’ M ot i on t o D i s m i s s i s pl enary , and “w e ac ceptas t rue al l w el l - pl ed fa ctual a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e c o mp l a i n ta n d a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s t h a tc a n b e d r a wn f r o m th e m, and w e af

fi r m t he or derof di s m i s s al onl yi f the pl eadi ng does notpl aus i bl ys ugges tan ent i t l ementt o r el i ef. ” Fe l ln e rv . T r i - Un i o n S e a

f o o d s , L . L . C. , 5 3 9 F . 3 d 2 3 7 , 2 4 2 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 8 ). 2 se c u re th e lo a n s. T h e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted A p p e llee s’ M o tio n to D ism iss p u rsu a n t to Feder al R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) undert he doctr i nes of col l at er al es t oppel and r es ju d ica ta . O n appea l , T ar t agl i a ar gues t hatt hi s deci s i on w as i n err orbeca us e the D i s t r i ct C our t1) fai l ed t o cons i derhi s contr i but i on cl ai m ; and 2) i ncorr ect l ycons t rued the purpor t edl ypr ecl us i ve N ew Y or k s t at e courtdeci s i on as i ncl udi ng a fi ndi ng t hatno f o r g e r yo c c u r r e d . W e wi l l a f f i r m. 1 2 Fi r s t , t he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d addr es s T ar t agl i a’ s contr i but i on cl ai m . I n i t s r eci t at i on of the fa ctual and pr ocedur al backgr ound, t he D i s t r i ctC our tnot ed thatT ar t agl i a w as “al l egi ng count s of fr aud and contr i but i on s t emm i ng fr om t he l eas e agr eement s . . . . ” (J . A . 4a (em ph asi s added ). ) I tl at er hel d that“T art agli a’s c l a i ms ar e barr ed byi s s ue3

precl usi on , ” and t hat “Ta rt agli a’s c l a i ms a re a lso b a rre d b yc laim p re c lu sio n .” T h u s, it is cl eart hatt he D i s t r i ctC our tdi d cons i derT ar t agl i a’ s contr i but i on cl ai m and det erm i ned t hati tw as barr ed bybot h col l at er al es t oppel and re s ju d ica ta . Second, t he N ew Y or k s t at e courtdi d det erm i ne thatT ar t agl i a’ s s i gnatur e w as not forged . In the st at e cou rtproceed i ng s, t he st at e cou rti m po sed l i abil i t yon T art agli a as a g u ara n tor o r co -gu ara n tor o f c ertain lease s tha t w ere in d ef au lt . T h ere , T artag li a’s defe ns e w as t hathe neve ragr eed t o guar ant ee a nyof the l eas es beca us e hi s s i gnatur e w as for ged on the l eas e document s . A ccor di ngl y , as t he D i s t r i ctC our tcorr ect l ys t at ed, t he s t at e court“coul d nothave f ound T ar t agl i a l i abl e undert he l eas e agr eement s w i t hout h a v in g d e c id e d th a t h is p e rso n a l g u a ra n tyw a s v a lid .” In o th e r w o rd s, b e f o re it co u ld im p o se li ab il ityo n T artag li a, th e state c o u rtm u st ha v e d eterm ined that n o fo rge ry occurr ed. T a rta g lia’s a rg u m e n t to th e c o n tra ryis u n f o u n d e d . T a rta g lia c o n ten d s th a t th e sta te cour tonl ydeci ded thatt he evi dent i arypr oof he s ubm i t t ed w as noti n t he pr operfor m , not t hathi s s i gnatur e w as notfor ged. H e poi nt s t o t he s t at e court ’ s s t at ementt hatt he pl ai nt i ff i n t hatcas e “s ubm i t t ed evi dence i n admi s s i bl e form . ” B utt hats t at ements ay s not hi ng aboutanyevi dence t hatT ar t agl i a, a def endant , s ubm i t t ed. N ori s i tl ogi cal t o concl ude th a t sin c e th e sta te c o u rt d e e m e d th e p lain tiff ’s e v id e n c e “ in a d m iss ib le f o rm ,” th a t it bel i eved Tar t agl i a’ s evi dence i n i m pr operform . A s a r es ul t , w e w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ct C ou rt ’s order grant i ng t he A pp el l ees’ M oti on t o D i sm i ss.