* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-30566

No. 07-30613

No. 07-30768

BARCOSH LTD.

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

WALTER C. DUMAS; DUMAS & ASSOCIATES LAW CORPORATION

Defendants - Appellants

Appeals from the United States District Court 

Middle District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 3:06-CV-616

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and DAVIS and GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Barcosh sued Walter C. Dumas and Dumas & Associates (collectively,

“Dumas”) on a debt in Ohio state court and obtained a default judgment in

August 2006. Barcosh then brought an action in the U.S. District Court for the

Middle District of Louisiana (“Middle District”) to enforce that judgment.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
Nos. 07-30613; 07-30566; 07-30768

2

Barcosh prevailed at every stage below, and Dumas appealed at every stage, as

will be described. The appeals are meritless.

First, the Middle District granted Barcosh’s motion for summary

judgment, ruling that the August 2006 Ohio judgment was valid and

enforceable. Dumas appealed that ruling to this Court in case number 07-30613.

Shortly thereafter, the Middle District learned that Dumas was working in

Louisiana state court in an apparent effort to relitigate the enforceability of the

August 2006 judgment. Dumas also was attempting to extract funds held in the

registry of the 22nd Judicial District Court of Louisiana — funds that Dumas

had expressly pledged as security for the debt to Barcosh. The Middle District

enjoined Dumas’s actions and ordered that the funds held by the 22nd District

be transferred to the registry of the Middle District. Dumas appealed these

orders in appeal number 07-30566. Most recently, the Middle District ordered

that the pledged funds be released to Barcosh in partial satisfaction of the

August 2006 Ohio judgment. Dumas appealed this order in appeal number

07-30768. All three of Dumas’s appeals are consolidated here for administrative

purposes.

The procedural background ofthis case is extensive, but the following facts

will suffice. There were two separate default judgments from the Ohio court,

and two separate enforcement actions in Louisiana. The first Ohio judgment

was entered against Dumas in April 2006, and Barcosh brought an action in

Louisiana state court to enforce it. That Louisiana state court action was

dismissed without prejudice when Barcosh agreed to set aside the April 2006

judgment and allow Dumas additional time to answer in Ohio. After Dumas

failed to answer,the Ohio courtissued a second defaultjudgment against Dumas
Nos. 07-30613; 07-30566; 07-30768

3

in August 2006. Barcosh filed the present lawsuit in the Middle District to

enforce this second, August 2006 judgment.

Dumas’s main argument in all three appeals is that res judicata prevents

the Middle District action from going forward. Specifically, Dumas claims both

the Louisiana state court enforcement action and the Middle District

enforcement action are based on the same subject matter, namely, the

substantive debt Dumas owes Barcosh. This argument is meritless. The subject

matter of an enforcement action is the foreign judgment itself, not the

underlying claim that has already been adjudicated. As the district court noted,

“matters of enforcement are based on the fact of the judgment rather than the

facts behind the judgment.” Here, neither the Louisiana court nor the Middle

District was required (or permitted) to look into the merits of Dumas’s

underlying debt to Barcosh. See Milwaukee County v. M.E. White Co., 296 U.S.

268, 275-76 (1935). Rather, each court was concerned only with the foreign

judgment before it, and in this case there were two distinct judgments. The

record reflects that the Louisiana state court action concerned only the

enforcement ofthe April 2006 judgment. When the April 2006 judgment was set

aside for procedural reasons, the Louisiana state court action was dismissed

without prejudice. Those proceedings implicated neither the validity of Dumas’s

underlying debt nor the August 2006 judgment on it. Accordingly, the district

court’s summary judgment in favor of Barcosh is affirmed.

Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in the other matters on

appeal including, inter alia, the enforceability of the August 2006 judgment, the

propriety of injunctive relief,the sequestration of funds, and the release of funds

to Barcosh. These issues were properly addressed by the district court and
Nos. 07-30613; 07-30566; 07-30768

4

require no further discussion. For essentially the same reasons stated below, the

judgments of the district court in all three appeals before this Court are

AFFIRMED.