FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T MARCH 1 1, 20 10 J OHN LEY CLERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 9- 12 42 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 8- 02 06 6- CV-T-2 4- MAP E. FRANK GRISWO LD, III, Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH, FLORIDA GO VERNMENT, HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION COMM ISSI ON, DAVID MIC HAEL CARR, in di vi du al ly, etal., Defen da nt s- App el le es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 11 , 20 10 ) Befo re BLACK, MAR CUS an d HIGGINB OTHAM, Cir cu itJu dg es . * BLACK, Ci rcu itJu dg e: Honora ble Patrick E. Hig g inbotham, United States Circuit J udg e for the Fif th Circuit, * sitti ngby designation.App el la ntE. Fran k Gri swo ldis th e p res id en t an d s ol e sh areh ol de r of two bu si ne ss es , MedEvac , Inc . andMedEvac , LLC (th e Co m pa ni es ), th atpro vi de
em erg en cy

m ed ic al tra ns po rta ti on servi ces . Gris wol d, a d is ab le d v et eran , arg ue s th atApp el le es vi ol at edhi s ri gh ts un de r th e Vet eran s B en efi ts Act o f 20 03 , Pub . L. No. 1 08 -1 83 , § 3 6, 1 17 Sta t. 2 65 1, 2 66 2 (c od ifi edat 1 5 U.S.C. § 65 7f (20 03 )) (the Vete ran s Act ), by int erfe rin g wi th th e Co m pa ni es ’ ab il it y

to ob ta in cert ai n go ve rn m en t co nt ract s. Th e d is tri ctco urt fo un d t ha t Gri swo ld ’s cla im s ar e b arre d
un de r th e d oc tri ne of r es jud ic at a due to earl ie r li ti ga ti on bro ug htby the Co m pa ni es ari si ng fro m

th e sa m e fac ts . W e aff

irm th e jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ct co urt. I. BACKGROUND The Vete ran s Actpro vi de s co nt ractpre fere nc es forsm al l b us in es se s o wne d by vet eran s wh o wer e d is ab le d due to m il it ary se rv ic e. Se e 15 U.S.C. § 6 57 f . Acco rd in g t o Gri swo ld , bec au se he was t he on ly serv ic e-d is ab le d v et eraninth e St at e o f Fl or id a who was abl e to co m pe te forem erg en cy

m ed ic al tra ns po rta ti on co nt ract s, h e was en ti tl edto su chco nt ract s u nd er the qu ot a syst em of t he Vete ran s Act. Gris wol d a dv an cedsev eral cla im s ag ai ns t Ap pe ll ees , Cou nt y of Hil ls bo ro ug h, Hi ll sb or ou ghCo un ty Pub li c Tran sp orta ti on Co m m is si on(HCPTC), 2an d Dav idMi ch ael Carr , for all eg ed ly int erfe rin g wi th hi s ab il it y to ob ta in 1 go ve rn m en t co nt ract s h e was en ti tl edto rece iv e und er the Vete ran s Act . Gris wol d
co nt en ds App el le es pre ve nt edhi m fro m rece iv in g t he go ve rn m en t co nt ract s b y in ap pr op ria te ly del ay in g t he co ns id erat io n a ndis su an ce o f a certi fic at e o f publ ic
co nv en ie nc e an d n eces si ty (COPCN) n eed edto op erat e anam bu la nc e se rv ic e bu si ne ss inHil ls bo ro ug h C ou nt y . Sp eci fic al ly, Gris wol d a dv an cedcla im s: (1)
un de r 42 U.S.C. §§ 19 81 , 19 83 , and19 85 forvi ol at io ns of h is rig ht s u nd er the Vete ran s Act ; (2 ) fo r to rti ou s i nt erfe ren ce wi thpro sp ect iv e b us in es s co ntract s; an d (3 ) fo r pu ni ti ve da m ag es . Ina pr ev io us su it , Gris wol d a ndth e Co m pa ni es su edApp el le es an d o th ers fo r co ns pi rin g t o m on op ol iz e th e am bu lanc e b us in es s. The c om pl ai ntall eg ed App el le es an d o th ers ha d e ng ag edinun la wfu l p ract ic es th atres tri ct edco m pe ti ti on du rin g t he ti m e in whi chth e Co m pa ni es fil edth ei r COPCN ap pl ic at io ns , in cl ud in g act io ns tak ento de la y

th e ap pl ic at io ns ’ ap pr ov al . Alth ou gh Gris wol d was di sm is se d fr om

th e p rio r li ti ga ti on be cau se he pe rs on al ly suf fere d n o i nju ry

an d la ck edst an di ng to ass ertth e Co m pa ni es ’ an ti tru stcla im s, jud gm en t was en te red ag ai ns t the Co m

pa ni es .

Carr w as the c o-owne r of a competingambulance company . 1 3App el le es fil edtwo m ot io ns to di sm is s, ar gu in g t ha t Gri swo ld ’s cla im s wer e

ba rredun de r th e d oc tri ne of r es jud ic at a. The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d Ap pe ll ees ’
m ot io ns intwo sep arat e o rd ers . The d is tri ctco urt h el d t ha t Gri swo ldwas i n 2 pr iv it y with t he Co m

pa ni es , andth us co ul d b e b ou ndby the pri orli ti ga ti on ev en th ou gh he was n ota pa rty, “ [b ]ecaus e as th e so le sh areh ol de r an d P res id en t o f th e bu si ne ss es , th e [Co m

pa ni es ] were ‘so clo se ly alig ne d t o [Gr is wol d’s] in te res t as to be hi s v irtua l re pr es en ta ti ve .’ ” The co urt al so fou ndbo th su it s i nv ol ve d t he same cau se of a ct io n. Th e co urt h el d t ha t b ot h c as es aro se fro m a co m m on nu cl eu s o f op erat iv e fac ts —the all eg edde la y of t he Co m

pa ni es ’ COPCN ap pl ic at io ns —an d th atth e Co m

pa ni es co ul d h av e rai se d Gri swo ld ’s cla im s i n t he pri orpro ceed in g si nc e th e Vet eran ’s Act co nf ers rig ht s o n b us in es se s o wne d b y di sabl edve te ran s rathe r th anon th e in di vi du al ve te ran s the m se lv es . II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The di stric t co urt’s ap pl ic at io n o f res jud ic at a is a qu es ti onof l aw whi chis
rev ie wedde no vo . EEOC v. Pemco Aer op le x, In c. , 38 3 F .3d12 80 , 12 85 (11 th Cir
. 20 04 ). “ Howev er, wh ethe r a p arty is inpri vi ty w it h a no th er fo r pr ecl us io n

Appellee Michae l Carr’s motion to dismis s was grante d on Dec ember 16, 2008, and 2 Hillsborough County ’s motion to dis miss was grante d on April 7, 2009. 4pu rp os es is a qu es ti on of f actth atis rev ie wedforcle ar erro r.” Id
. ; se e a ls o Har t v. Y ama ha -Par ts Dis tr ib ut or s, In c. , 78 7 F .2d14 68 , 14 72 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). III. DISCUS SION Und er the do ctrin e o f res jud ic at a, a cl ai m is ba rredby prio r li ti ga ti on if:

“ (1 ) th ere i s a f

in al jud gm en t o n t he m eri ts ; (2 ) th e d eci si on was re nd eredby a
co urt o f co m

pe te ntjuri sd ic ti on ; (3 ) th e p art ie s, o r th os e in pri vi ty w it h t he m , are id en ti cal inbo th su it s; an d (4 ) th e sa m e cau se of a ct io n i s i nv ol ve d i n b ot h c as es .” Rag sd al e v. Rub be rma id

, Inc
. , 19 3 F .3d12 35 , 12 38 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). The p art ie s do no t d is pu te th atth e p rio r su itin vo lv eda fi na l ju dg m en t o n t he m eri ts by a cou rt of co m pe te ntjuri sd ic ti on . Res jud ic at a is th us ap pr op ria te if the di st ric t co urt d id
no t err by fin di ng : (a ) Gris wol d was inpri vi ty w it h t he Co m pani es ; an d (b ) th e cas es in vo lv edth e sa m e cau se of a ct io n. A. Pri vi ty The Supr em e Co urt re cen tl y cla rif ie d t he us e o f no np arty

pre cl us io n i n Ta yl or v. St ur ge ll , 12 8 S . Ct. 2 16 1, 2 17 2– 73 (20 08 ). As a g en eral rul e, “ on e is no t bo un d b y a jud gm en t in pe rs on am in a li ti ga ti on inwhi chhe is no t d es ig na te d a s a pa rty or t o wh ic h h e h as no t b eenm ad e a p arty by serv ic e o f pr oc es s.” Id
. at21 71 (quo ti ng Han sb erryv. Lee , 31 1 U.S. 3 2, 4 0, 6 1 S . Ct. 1 15 , 11 7 (1 94 0) ). The ru le ag ai ns t n onpa rty prec lu si on , ho wev er, i s s ub ject t o s ix cat eg or ie s o f ex cep ti on s. 5Id
. at 2 17 2. A co urt m ay ap pl y no np arty pre cl us io n i f: (1 ) th e n onparty agre edto be bo un d b y

th e li ti ga ti on of o th ers ; (2 ) a s ub st an ti ve leg al rel at io ns hi p e xi st ed be twee n the pe rs on to be bo un d anda pa rty to t he jud gm en t; (3) th e n onpa rty was ad equa te ly repre se nt edby som eo ne who was apa rty to t he su it ; (4 ) th e n onpa rty as su m edco nt ro l o ve r th e li ti ga ti on inwhi chth e jud gm en t was is su ed ; (5 ) a p arty at te m pt edto rel it ig at e is su es th ro ug h apro xy; or(6) a st atut ory sch em e fo recl os ed
su cces si ve li ti ga ti on by non li ti ga nt s. Se e id
. at21 72 –7 3. Whi le an no un ci ng th e si x c at eg or ie s o f ex cep ti on s l is te d abo ve , th e Ta yl or Co urt al so ex pl ic it ly rejectedth e v irtua l re pr es en ta ti on ex cep ti on pre vi ou sl y us ed in th is Cir cu itan d e ls ewh ere. Se e id
. at21 78 . In thi s C irc ui t, “ [t]he do ctrin e o f vi rtu al rep res en ta ti on pro vi de [d ] in ess en ce tha t ‘a pe rs on m ay be bo un d b y

a jud gm en t ev enth ou gh no t a p arty if o ne of the parti es to th e su itis so clo se ly al ig ne d wi th hi s i nt eres ts as t o b e h is vi rtu al rep res en ta ti ve .’ ” Pemco Aero pl ex, In c. , 38 3 F .3dat 1 28 7 (quo ti ng Aero je t-Ge n. Co rp . v. Askew , 51 1 F .2d71 0, 7 17 (5 th Cir . 19 75 )). The Co urt i n Ta yl or fo un d t ha t the vi rtu al rep res en ta ti on ex cep ti on ’s “ am or

ph ou s b al an ci ng tes t” th reat en edto bypas s the li m it at io ns fou nd in th e Co urt’s en um erat edex cep ti on s an d b ur de ne d d is tri ctco urts with “ wid eran gi ng , ti m e-co ns um in g, an d e xp en si ve di sc ov ery. ” Ta ylor , 12 8 S . Ct. at 21 75 –7 6. 6The Ta yl or Co urt, h owe ve r, reco gn iz edth at“ [m ]any op in io ns us e th e te rm ‘virtua l re pr es en ta ti on ’ inreac hi ng res ul ts at l eas t ar gu ab ly defen si bl e o n es tabl is he d g ro un ds . In the se cas es , dro pp in g t he ‘ vi rtu al rep res en ta ti on ’ labe l
wou ldlea d t o c le areran al y si s wi th li tt le , if an y , cha ng e in ou tc om es .” Id
. at21 78
. (in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d) . In Ta ylor , alt ho ug h t he Dis tri ctof C ol um bi a Ci rcu it ap pl ie d t he vi rtu al rep res en ta ti on ex cep ti on , th e Supr em e Co urt thu s co ns id ered whe th er i ts de ci si on co ul d b e uph el d u nd er o ne of the si x e st ab li sh edex cep ti on s. Id
. at21 78 –7 9. Thi s C ou rt wi ll th eref

or e aff irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er d es pi te it s erro ne ou s u se of t he vi rtu al rep res en ta ti on ex cep ti on if i ts de ci si oncanbe up he ld
un de r on e o f th e si x e xc ep ti on s enum erat edin Ta yl or . The d is tri ctco urt h el d t ha t Gris wol d was inpri vi ty w it h the Co m pa ni es be cau se , “ as th e so le sh areh ol de r an d Pres id en t” of the Co m

pa ni es , hi s i nt eres ts were “ cl os el y ali gn ed ” wit h t ho se of t he Co m pa ni es inth e p rio r li ti ga ti on . The d is tri ctco urt’s an al y si s re m ai ns va li d be cau se , altho ug h aco urt m ay no lo ng er fi ndpri vi ty bas edso le ly on asi m il ari ty of in te res ts , Gris wol d u se d h is rel at io ns hi p wi th th e Co m pani es to co ntro l the pri or li ti ga ti on . The Supr em e Co urt ex pl ai ne d i n Ta yl or th ata “ no np arty

is bo un d b y

a jud gm en t i f sh e ‘ass um e[d ] co nt ro l’ ov er the li ti ga ti on inwhi chth atjud gm en t was 7ren de red . Becau se su cha pe rs onha s h ad‘ th e o pp ortu ni ty to p res en t p ro of s an d arg um en t,’ he h as alr eady ‘ ha d h is da y

inco urt’ eve n t ho ug h h e was no t a f orm al pa rty to t he li ti ga ti on .” 12 8 S . Ct. 2 17 3 (i nt ern al cit at io ns om it te d) . As Gris wol d’s co un se l co nc ed edat o ral arg um en t, Gri swo ldha d c om pl et e co nt ro l
ov er the pri orli ti ga ti onas t he Co m pa ni es ’ pr es id en t an d s ol e sh areh ol de r. The 3 di st ric t co urt the refo re d idno t err by ho ld in g t ha t Gri swo ldwas i n p riv ity with t he Co m pa ni es . 4 B. Sam e Cau se of Ac ti on

“ [I]f a cas e ari se s o utof t he same nu cl eu s o f op erat iv e fac ts , or i s b as ed up on th e sa m e fac tu al pre di cat e, as a fo rm er ac ti on , . . . th e two cas es are re al ly the
sa m e ‘clai m ’ or‘ cau se of a ct io n’ forpu rp os es of r es jud ic at a.” Rag sd al e, 19 3 F.3 d a t 1 23 9 (quo ti ng Ci ti ba nk , N.A. v. Data Lea se Fin . Cor p. , 90 4 F .2d14 98 , 15 03 (11 th Cir . 19 90 )). Howe ve r, res jud ic at a b ars on ly tho se cla im s tha t co ul d ha ve be enrai se d i n t he pri orli ti ga ti on . Id
. at 1 23 8. Gris wol d d oe s n otdi sp ut e th atth e cl ai m s as se rte d i n t he curren t l it ig at io n aro se fro m

th e sa m e nuc le us of o pe rat iv e fac ts as t ho se in vo lv edinth e p rio r
At oral a rgument, Griswold’s counse l also “agree [d] that [Griswold] would be bar red 3 from bring ing c laims that the Company should have brought” in the prior litiga tion. Although the adequa

te re prese ntation exception also likely applies, we need not r eac h 4 that issue g iven our findingon the control e x ception. 8li ti ga ti on . Bot h c as es aro se fro m th e sa m e al le ge dl y

un la wfu l d el ay

inth e Co m pa ni es ’ COPCN ap pl ic at io ns . Ins te ad , Gris wol d a rg ue s re s ju di cat a sh ou ld
no t ap pl y be cau se th e Co m

pani es lac ke d s ta nd in g t o b rin g c la im s u nd er the Vete ran s Act
. 5 The Co m pa ni es ha d s ta nd in g t o b rin g Gri swo ld ’s cla im s, h owe ve r, be cau se he do es no t p os se ss an y

rig ht s u nd er the Vete ran s Actth atare d is ti ng ui sh ab le fro m th os e g ran te d t o t he Co m pa ni es . The Vet eran s Actest ab li sh es th e Pro cu rem en t Pr og ram

forSm al l Bu si ne ss Co nc ern s Own edan d C on tro ll edby Serv ic e Dis ab le d Vet eran s (S DVOSBC), wh ic h p erm it s a c on tra ct in g o ffi cer t o awardco nt ract s o n the ba si s o f co m pe ti ti on res tri ct edto “ sm al l b us in es s co nc ern s own edan d c on tro ll edby serv ic e-d is ab le d v et eran s.” Se e 15 U.S.C. § 6 57 f. Whi le th e SDVOSBC en ab li ng leg is la ti on an d a ss oc ia te d a dm in is tra ti ve reg ul at io ns rep eat ed ly refer t o c on tra ctpre fere nc es forsm al l b us in es se s o wne d b y di sabl ed
ve te ran s, the y

do no t co nf

er an y rig ht s d ire ct ly on t he ve te ran s the m se lv es . Se e 15 U.S.C. § 6 57 f; 1 3 C .F.R. § 1 25 .8(g ); 1 3 C .F.R. § 1 25 .14 ; 4 8 C .F.R. § 6 .20 6; 48 C.F.R. § 18 .11 6. Th e Co m pa ni es th eref

or e co ul d h av e adva nc edGris wol d’s cl ai m s in th e p rio r li ti ga ti on , m ak in g t he m subjec t t o c la im

pre cl us io n.
Although Griswold’s complaint asser ts mult iple claims, ea ch cla im is based on alleg ed 5 violations of the Veter ans Ac t. 9C. Man ife stInju st ic e Exc ep ti on

Gris wol d fu rth er ar gu es th e d is tri ctco urt erredby fail in g t o app ly a
m an ife stin

jus ti ce ex cep ti on . The Supr em e Co urt, h owe ve r, ha s caut io ne d a ga in st de pa rti ng fro m

acce pt edpri nc ip le s o f res jud ic at a. InFede ra te d Dep ar tmen t St or es , Inc . v. Moi ti e , th e Co urt ex pl ai ne d tha t “ [t]he do ctrin e o f res jud ic at a se rv es vi ta l p ub li c in te res ts be y on d a ny ind iv idua l ju dg e’s adho c d et erm in at io n o f th e equi ti es ina pa rti cu la r cas e. Ther e is si m pl y ‘ no pri nc ip le of l aw orequi ty whi chsan ct io ns th e reject io n b y a fed eral co urt o f th e sa lu tary pri nc ip le of r es jud ic at a.’” 45 2 U.S. 3 94 , 40 1, 1 01 S. Ct. 2 42 4, 2 42 9 (1 98 1) (qu ot in g Heis er v. W oo dr uf f , 32 7 U.S. 7 26 , 73 3, 6 6 S . Ct. 8 53 , 85 6 (1 94 6) ). Even if am an ife st in jus ti ce ex cep ti on were t o e xi st , th e ap pl ic at io n o f res jud ic at a wou ldno t b e un jus t i n t hi s ca se . Gris wol d c ou ldhave adva nc edcla im s u nd er the Vete ran s Act du rin g h is co ntro l o f th e p rio r li ti ga ti on an d t hu s h as alr eady ha d h is da y

inco urt. IV. CONCLUSION The di stric t co urt d idno t err by ho ld in g tha t Gri swo ldwas i n p riv it y with th e Co m pa ni es inth e p rio r li ti ga ti on an d t ha t b ot h s ui ts in vo lv edth e sa m e cau se of act io n. We th eref

or e aff irm th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er g ran ti ng App el le es ’ m ot io n to di sm is s o n t he gro un ds of r es jud ic at a. AFFIR MED. 10