2005 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 3-10-2005 

# Unit ed F ed Le a sing v

. U SA 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 . 03-4831

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and 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 nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 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 nova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

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

w . vi l l a nova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U nit e d F e d L e asin g v

. U SA" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1457. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1457W hi l e ther e i s s om e unce r t ai nt yr egar di ng t he pr opers t andar d of r evi ew 1 u n d e r t h e c ir c u m s ta n c e s p re s e n te d h e re , s ee W i tkow s kiv. W

elch , 1 7 3 F .3 d 1 9 2 , 1 9 8 n .7 ( 3d C i r . 1999) , w e nee d notr es ol ve the i s s ue her e bec aus e w e w oul d aff i r m t he dec i s i on o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt e v e n u n d e r t h e m o s t d e m a n d in g s ta n d a rd o f re v ie w . 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: 03- 4831 U N IT E D F E D E R A L L E A S IN G , IN C ., A ppel l ant v. UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA O n A ppeal fr om an O r derof D i s m i s s al fr om t he M id d le D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia D . C . C i vi l N o. 03- cv- 00863 D i s t r i ctJ udge: C hr i s t opherC . C onner Subm i t t ed Pur s uantt o T hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J anuary19, 2005 B efor e: A L I T O , M cK E E , and SM I T H , C i r cui tJ udges O PI N I O N FI L E D M A R C H 10, 2005 M cK E E , C i r cui tJ udge U ni t ed Feder al L eas i ng, I nc. ( “U FL ”) appea l s fr om an O r derof D i s m i s s al of the Di s t r i c tCo u r tf

o rt h e M i d d l e Di s t r i c to f P e n n s y l v a n i a t h a twa s e n t e r e d p u r s u a n tt o F e d . R. Ci v . P . 1 2 ( b ) ( 1 ) . F o rt h e r e a s o n s t h a tf o l l o w, we wi l l a f

f i r m. 12 I.

I nas m uch as w e w r i t e onl yfort he part i es , w e nee d nots etfor t h t he fa ctual or pr ocedur al backgr ound of thi s di s put e. R ather , w e w i l l pr ocee d di r ect l yt o ourbr i ef d isc u ss io n . T h e d o c trin e o f iss u e p re c lu sio n d e riv e s f ro m th e p rin c ip le th a t “‘ late r c o u rts s houl d honort he fi r s tactual deci s i on of a mat t ert hathas been a ctual l yl i t i gat ed. ’ ” B ur l i ngt on N

or ther n R ai lr oad C o. v. H yundaiMer chant

Mar i ne , 63 F. 3d 1227, 1231 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed) . I n or derfort he doctr i ne t o appl y , eac h of the fol l ow i ng condi t i ons m us tbe s at i s fi ed: 1) t he i s s ue s oughtt o be pr ecl uded i s t he s ame as t hat i nvol ved i n t he pr i oract i on; 2) t he i s s ue w as actual l yl i t i gat ed; 3) t he i s s ue w as det erm i ned bya fi nal and val i d j udgm ent ; and 4) t he det erm i nat i on w as es s ent i al t o t he p ri o r j u d g m e n t. Id . at1231- 32, ( ci t i ng, I n r e Gr a h a m, 9 7 3 F . 2 d 1 0 8 9 , 1 0 9 7 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 2 )) . A n i s s ue i s actual l yl i t i gat ed w hen i ti s pr oper l yr ai s ed, bypl eadi ngs orot herw i s e, is s u b m itte d f

o r d e te rm in a tio n , a n d is d e te rm in e d . O ’ Lear y v. Li ber t

y Mut ualI

ns ur ance C o. , 9 2 3 F .2 d 1 0 6 2 , 1 0 6 6 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 1 ), ci t i ng R es t at em ent ( Second) of

Judgm ent

s § 27 c o m m e n t d , a t2 5 5 ( 1 9 8 2 ) . A j u d g m e n ti s f i n a l a n d v a l i d w h e n i th a s b e e n r e n d e r e d b y a cour tof compet entj ur i s di ct i on and the part yagai ns tw hom j udgm enti s r ender ed has s u b m itte d to th e ju ri s d ic tio n o f th e c o u rt . O ’Leary , 923 F. 2d at1066. I f an i s s ue w asUF L , in su pp or t of its po sition

that th ede c isi on

in t heEa stern

Di stric t of

Virg ini a did 2 not rea ch the merits, has relied on this Court’s prior dec isions in Etten v. Love ll Man. Co. , 225 F.2d 844 ( 3d Cir. 1955) and Compagnie Des Baux ites De Guine e , 723 F.2d 357 ( 3d Cir. 1983). However, UF L ’s re liance is misplace d. Both of thosecase s dismis sed Plaintiff’s claims for lack of per sonal jurisdiction, as opposed to the instant matter that wa s dismis sed for want of subjec t matter jurisdiction. The merits of whether or not the CDA applies to UF L ’s claims havebeen reached a nd decide d by

a cour t of competent jurisdiction.

3 “ c r i t i c a l t o t h e j u d g m e n t ” i ti s n o tm e r e l y d icta and s at i s fi es t he condi t i on of bei ng “es s ent i al t o t he j udgm ent . ” I d. a t 1 0 6 7 . I s s ue pr ecl us i on i s i nt ended t o pr ot ectl i t i gant s fr om t he dual bur den of r el i t i gat i ng an i s s ue w i t h t he s ame par t yand the pr om ot i on of j udi ci al economyt hr ough pr event i on of n e e d le s s litig a tio n . I

d. at1069, n. 10 ( ci t i ng C l ark v. Troutm an , 5 0 9 P a . 3 3 6 , 3 4 0 (1 9 8 5 )) . H er e, t he i s s ue t o be pr ecl uded i s t he s ame as the one i nvol ved i n an ea r l i eract i on i n V i r gi ni a. Second, t he j ur i s di ct i onal i s s ue w as actual l yl i t i gat ed ther e, as t he def endant r ai s ed the j ur i s di ct i onal i s s ue bas ed on the appl i cabi l i t yof the C ont r actD i s put es A ctof 1 9 7 8 . U F L su b m itt e d to th e ju risd ictio n o f th e p rio r c o u rt a s it f

iled its e a rlier law su it i n 2 t he East ern D i s t r i ctof V i r gi ni a. T hatcour trul ed thatU FL ’ s cl ai m s w er e depe ndenton r i ght s pl ai nt i ff obt ai ned thr ough governm ent - r el at ed contr act s . T hus , t he i s s ue of l ack of s ubj ectm at t erj ur i s di ct i on w as pr oper l yr ai s ed byt he pl eadi ngs , and i tw as es s ent i al t o t he f in a l ju d g m e n t o f

th e c o u rt. A c c o rd in g ly , the d o c trin e o f iss u e p re c lu sio n w o u ld n o rm a lly p re v e n t U F L f

ro m b ri n g in g th e in s ta n t s u it.4 II. U FL ar gues an exc ept i on t o t he doctr i ne thati s out l i ned i n R es t at ement( Second) of Jud gm ents § 2 8 as fo l l ow s: al t hough an i s s ue i s actual l yl i t i gat ed and de t erm i ned bya val i d and fi nal j udgm ent , and the det erm i nat i on i s es s ent i al t o t he j udgm ent , r el i t i gat i on of t he i s s ue i n t he s ubs equentact i on betw een the part i es i s notpr ecl uded i n t he foll ow i ng ci rcum st ances: ( 2) t he i s s ue i s one of l aw and ( a) t he tw o act i ons i nvol ve cl ai m s t hatar e s ubs t ant i al l yunr el at ed, or( b) a new det erm i nat i on i s w arr ant ed i n or dert o t ake a ccountof an i nt erveni ng change i n t he appl i cabl e l egal cont extor otherw i se t o av oid i neq uit able adm i nis t rat i on of the l aw s. H ow ever , w e bel i eve ourdeci s i on i n O ’Leary for ecl os es U FL ’ s at t empt t o ar gue t hatt he di ffe r ent“l egal envi r onm ent ” betw een the or i gi nal V i r gi ni a s ui t , and the i ns t ant s ui ts om ehow s us pends t he us ual cons i der at i ons t hatunder l i e the doctr i ne of i s s ue p re c lu s io n . See A ppel l ant ’ s B r . at9 ( “the l aw of i s s ue pr ecl us i on . . . m akes t he pr ecl us i on is s u e d e p e n d e n t u p o n th e le g a l e n v ir o n m e n t . . .” .). Pl ai nt i ff’ s at t empt t o ci r cumventt he j ur i s di ct i onal bart hatw oul d ar i s e bec aus e of t he pos s i bl e oper at i on of the C ont r actD i s put es A ctof 1978 i s bot h unconvi nci ng and unavai l i ng. U FL can nots at i s fyi t s bur den under§ 28( 2) of es t abl i s hi ng t hatt he demand i tm ade i n t he D i s t r i ctC our tfort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a i s s o di s t i nctfr om t he demand i tm ade i n t he East ern D i s t r i ctof V i r gi ni a as t o fal l w i t hi n t he cl ai m pr ecl us i on e x c e p tio n e m b o d ie d in § 2 8 (2 ) o f th e R e s ta te m e n t ( S e c o n d ) o f J u d g m e n ts . See5

B u r lin g to n N

o r th e r n R a ilr o a d

C o ., 6 3 F . 3 d at 12 3 4 ((“[A ] f act , ques t i on o r r ight di s t i nct l yadj udged i n t he or i gi nal act i on cannotbe di s put ed i n a s ubs equentact i on, even [i f] t he det erm i nat i on w as r eac hed upon an e r r oneous vi ew orbyan err oneous appl i cat i on o f th e la w .” )) (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l) (c ita tio n o m itte d ). III . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l aff i r m t he O r derof D i s m i s s al of the M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a.