FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT MAY 4 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 16207 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D. C . Do c k e tNo . 0 5 - 0 1 8 6 6 - C V- T - 2 6 - MAP C A R L F . T U S C A N O , S R ., P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s E V E N I N G J O U RN A L A S S O C I A T I O N , a c o rp o r a tio n o f

th e S ta te o f

N e w J e r s e y , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lle e .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( M ay 4, 2006) B efo re C A RN E S , P R Y O R an d F A Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:A def endant may

removeto federal c ourt a c ivil action brought in state court, provide d 1 that the fe deral court has original jurisdiction over the ac tion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Mo re ov e r, orig inal juri sdic tio n ma y beba se d u

po n divers ity

of c iti zen sh ip. Se e28 U. S.C. § 1332(a) (1). 2 C ar l F . T usca no , S r. , appeal s pro se the di stri ctcourt ’ s s ua spon t e order di sm i ss i ng w i th p re

j ud i ce hi s pro se ci vi l com pl ai ntagai nstthe E veni ng Journal A sso ci at i o n (“ th e E v en i n g Jo u rn al ”), aft er th e E v en i n g Jo u rn al rem o v ed th e case f r om the S i xth J udi c i a l C i r c ui tC our ti n a nd f orP a s c o C ounty , F l or i da , t o the U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tC our tf orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da ba s e d on di ve r s i ty of c i t i z e ns hi p, pur s ua ntt o 28 U . S . C . §§ 1332 a nd 1441. T us c a no a r gue s tha tthe 1 d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in ( 1 ) c o n c lu d in g th a t it la c k e d ju r is d ic tio n , a n d ( 2 ) f a ilin g , in th e a l t e rn a t i v e , t o r e ma n d th e c a s e b a c k t o s t a t e c o u r t , p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 4 4 7 ( c ) . Fo rth e r e a s o n s s e tf o r th mo r e f

u l l y b e l o w , w e a f

f i r m. I n S e p te m b e r2 0 0 5 , T u s c a n o f ile d th e a b o v e - r e f

e r e n c e d c iv il c o m p la in t in the S i xth J udi c i a l C i r c ui tC our ti n a nd f orP a s c o C ounty , F l or i da , a s s e r t i ng the f ol l ow i ng f

a c t s : ( 1) he ha d e nt e r e d i nt o bi ndi ng a rbi tr a t i on w i th the E ve ni ng J ourna l i n the S t a t e of

N e w J e r s e y ; ( 2) a s a r e s ul tof thi s a rbi tr a t i on, the a rbi tr a t or h a d a w a r d e d T u s c a n o a to ta l s u m o f $ 2 0 1 ,1 1 9 ; ( 3 ) th is a w a r d w a s in c o rp o r a te d in to a j ud gm entand si gn ed by a s t at e c ou rtj ud ge; and (4) the E veni ng Journal , w hi ch ha d notf ul l y c om pl i e d w i th thi s or de r , s t i l l ow e d hi m $106, 995, i . e . $134, 115, the a m ounta l l e ge dl y ow e d t o hi m pur s ua ntt o the a rbi tr a t i on a w a r d, l e s s $27, 120, theThe Evening Journal clarified that, bec ause it wa s incorporated under the laws of the 2 State of De laware and maintained its principal placeof business in New Jersey, it was a c itiz en of De laware and N ew Jersey . 3 a m ountthe E ve ni ng S t a ra l l e ge dl y ha d pa i d hi m . T us c a no a l s o i nc l ude d tha the w a s a F l or i da r e s i de nta nd tha tthe E ve ni ng J ourna l w a s a r e s i de ntof the S t a t e of N e w J e r s e y . T u s c a n o s o u g h t a s r e lie f a n o r d e rin s tru c tin g th e E v e n in g J o u rn a l to c o m p ly w ith th e ju d g m e n t a n d to p a y a f a irr a te o f

in te r e s t a n d p u n itiv e d a m a g e s . I n O c t obe r2005, the E ve ni ng J ourna l r e m ove d the i ns t a ntc om pl a i ntt o the U ni t e d S t a t e s D i s tr i c tC our tf orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l or i da , pur s ua ntt o §§ 1332 and 1 44 1, base d o n d i vers i ty of c i t i ze nshi p. T he E veni ng Journal expl ai ned t hat T us c a no ha d a dm i tt e d on the f a c e of hi s c om pl a i nttha t( 1) he w a s a r e s i de ntof the S t at e o f F l o ri d a, (2 ) th e E v en i n g Jo u rn al w as a resi d en to f th e S t at e o f N ew Jersey, an d (3 ) th e am o u n ti n co n tro v ersy ex ceed ed $ 7 5 , 0 0 0 . T h e E v en i n g Jo u rn al al so 2 m o v e d f o ra n e n la r g e m e n t o f

tim e to r e s p o n d to T u s c a n o ’s c o m p la in t, a s s e r tin g , in part , thatT usca no ’ s a l l egat i on s a nd cl ai m s w er e i dent i ca l t o cl ai m s he had as se rt ed in p r io rlitig a tio n h e f

ile d in th e D is tr ic t C o u r t f o rth e M id d le D is tr ic t o f F lo r id a . T hi s pr i orl i t i ga t i on i nc l ude d a n A pr i l 2005 pr o s e c om pl a i ntby T us c a no a ga i ns tthe E ve ni ng J ourna l , f i l e d i n the D i s tr i c tC our tf orthe M i ddl e D i s tr i c tof F l ori da, i n w hi ch T usca no as se rt ed cl ai m s r el at i ng t o the E veni ng Journal ’ s a l l eged fa i l ure t o com pl y w i th the 19 79 arbi tra t i on aw ar d and the st at e c ou rt ’ s 198 0 fi nalAlthough thedistrict court’s order re lating to this prior litigation is notpart of the 3 re co rdo nap p ea l , we m ay t ak e j u di ci al n o t i ce o f i t . S ee Yo un g v . C i ty o f Au gu s t a, Ga , T hro u gh DeVa ney, 59 F.3d 1160, 1166 n.11 ( 11th Cir. 1995) (explaining that a c ourt may take judicial notice of a

nother c ourt order , at least for the limited purpose of re cognizi ngthe judicial ac tion taken or the subject matter

of the litigation). 4 j udgm e nt . S e e T us c a no v. T he E ve ni ng J ourna l A s s oc i a t i on, C a s e N o. 8: 05- c v11 2 (June 22 , 20 05 ) ( un pu b. ). In i t s orderdi sm i ss i ng thi s c om pl ai nt , the di stri ct 3 c o u r t d is c u s s e d th a t, o n A p r il 1 1 , 1 9 8 0 , T u s c a n o ’s c o u n s e l h a d f ile d in s ta te c o u r t a “W a rr a n t to S a tis f

y J u d g m e n t,” c o n f

ir m in g th a t th e ju d g m e n t h a d b e e n s a tis f ie d . S ee i d. at1-2. T he di stri ctcourtal so no t ed that , i n 2 00 2 and 20 04 , T usca no had f i l e d i n N e w J e r s e y s t a t e c our t s thr e e pl e a di ngs s e e ki ng t o e nf or c e the 1980 j udgm e nt , w hi c h w e r e a l l di s m i s s e d w i th pr e j udi c e . S e e i d. a t2. M or e ove r , the di s tr i c tc our te xpl a i ne d i n i t s di s m i s s a l or de rtha tT us c a no pr e vi ous l y ha d f

i l e d i n the di s tr i c tc our t : ( 1) a D e c e m be r2003 c om pl a i nta l l e gi ng tha tthe ow ne ra nd publ i s he rof the E ve ni ng J ourna l w a s i n c ont e m ptof c our ta nd had com m i tt ed fr aud and thefti n rel at i on t o the arbi tra t i on aw ar d and st at e c ou rt j udgm e nt , w hi c h the di s tr i c tc our ts ua s pont e di s m i s s e d ba s e d on i t s de t e r m i na t i on thatT usca no had t o see k a re m edy f rom the N ew Je rs ey courtthathad app roved the j ud gm ent ; and (2) an A ug ust20 04 com pl ai ntagai nstthe E veni ng S t ar , w hi ch the c our tha d di s m i s s e d w i th pr e j udi c e ba s e d on T us c a no’ s f a i l ur e t o s e r ve the E v e n in g S ta rw ith th e c o m p la in t. S e e id . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t u ltim a te ly5

(1) di sm i ss ed the A pri l 20 05 com pl ai nt , (2) e xp l ai ned t hati tl ac ked subj ec tm att er j uri sdi ct i on , and (3) enj oi ned T usca no fr om fi l i ng m ore a ct i on s i n the di stri ctcourt r e l a t i ng t o the 1979 a rbi tr a t i on a w a r d a nd the s t a t e c our t ’ s 1980 j udgm e nt . S e e i d. at2 -3 . T u scan o d i d n o tap p eal an y o f th ese p ri o r o rd ers. O n O ct ob er13 , 20 05 , the di stri ctcourtsua s po nt e di sm i ss ed w i th p re j ud i ce th e in s ta n t c o m p la in t. T h e c o u r t a c k n o w le d g e d th a t T u s c a n o h a d f ile d it in s ta te c our ta nd, thus , c om pl i e d w i th the pr e vi ous c our tor de rnott o f i l e m or e c a s e s i n the di s tr i c tc our tr e l a t i ng t o the 1979 a rbi tr a t i on a w a r d a nd the 1980 j udgm e nt . T he c our t , how e ve r , e xpl a i ne d tha t( 1) s ubj e c t - m a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on w a s l a c ki ng, a nd ( 2) i n tw o pr e vi ous or de r s , the c our tha d rul e d tha tthi s 1980 a rbi tr a t i on j udgm e nt h ad “ l o n g b een sat i sfi ed . ” In ex p l ai n i n g th i s seco n d g ro u n d , th e co u rtal so d is c u s s e d th a t T u s c a n o h a d f a ile d to ap p e a l e ith e ro f th e c o u r t’s e a r lie rd is m is s a ls a n d , th u s , c o u ld n o t r e - litig a te h is c la im s th r o u g h th e in s ta n t a c tio n . O n O ct ob er28 , 20 05 , T usca no fi l ed a m ot i on t o rem and t he com pl ai ntback t o the s t a t e c our t , pur s ua ntt o § 1447( c ) , ba s e d on the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de t e r m i na t i on th a t it la c k e d s u b

je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n . T h e d is tr ic t c o u r t s u m m a r ily d e n ie d th is m ot i on a s m oot . T us c a no the n f i l e d a not i c e of

appe a l , appe a l i ng both the di s m i s s a l of

hi s c om pl a i ntw i th pr e

j udi c e a nd the or de rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on f or r e m a n d .6

T usca no ar gu es on appeal thatthe di stri ctcourthad subj ec tm att er ju r is d ic tio n to e n f

o r c e h is a rb itr a tio n a w a r d , in c lu d in g c o rr e c tly c a lc u la tin g h is soci al se curi ty a nd pensi on benefi t s, re gardl es s of w hen t he arbi tra t i on aw ar d w as ent er ed. T usca no cont ends that , t o the ext enta “ W arra ntof S at i sf ac t i on ” w as ent er ed i n st at e c ou rti n A pri l 19 80 , thi s docum entdi d n otspec i fy ho w the aw ar d w as sa t i sf

i ed. T usca no al so as se rt s that , al tho ug h h e pre vi ou sl y r ai se d chal l enges re l at i ng t o thi s a rbi tra t i on aw ar d i n N ew Je rs ey st at e c ou rt s, these proceedi ng s had n o t b e e n f

a ir ly c o n d u c te d . M o r e o v e r , T u s c a n o c o n te n d s th a t, b e c a u s e h is com pl ai ntw as di sm i ss ed for l ac k o f s ubj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on , the di stri ctcourt e rr e d in d e n y in g h is m o tio n to r e m a n d th e c a s e b a c k to th e s ta te c o u r t. W e r e v ie w d e n o v o ru lin g s o n a f e d e r a l c o u r t’s s u b

je c t m a tte rju r is d ic tio n . P e e b le s v . M e rr ill L y n c h , P ie r c e , F e n n e r& S m ith , I n c ., 4 3 1 F .3 d 1 3 2 0 , 1 3 2 4 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2005) . “ T he va l i di ty of a n a rbi tr a t i on a gr e e m e nti s ge ne r a l l y gove rne d by the F e d e r a l A rb itr a tio n A c t, 9 U .S .C . § § 1 e t s e q . ( th e “F A A ” ) , w h ic h w a s e n a c te d in 1925 t o r e ve r s e the l ongs t a ndi ng j udi c i a l hos t i l i ty t ow a r d a rbi tr a t i on. ” C a l e y v. G ul f s tr e a m A e r os pa c e C orp. , 428 F . 3d 1359, 1367 ( 11th C i r . 2005) , pe t i t i on f or ce rt . fi l ed, (J an. 30 , 20 06 ) ( N o. 05 -959 ). “ T he F A A em bo di es a l i bera l fe dera l pol i c y f a vor i ng a rbi tr a t i on a gr e e m e nt s . ” I d. ( m a r ks a nd quot a t i ons om i tt e d) . T he pu rpose of the F A A w as “ t o rel i eve c on gest i on i n the court s a nd t o p rovi de part i es7

w ith a n a lte rn a tiv e m e th o d f o rd is p u te r e s o lu tio n th a t is s p e e d ie ra n d le s s c o s tly th a n litig a tio n .” I d . ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . F e de r a l c ourt s a nd s t a t e c our t s ha ve c onc ur r e ntj ur i s di c t i on t o e nf or c e the F A A . B a l t i n v. A l a r on T r a di ng C orp. , 128 F . 3d 1466, 1469 ( 11th C i r . 1997) ( c i t i ng M os e s H . C one M e m or i a l H os p. v. M e r c ury C ons t , C orp. , 460 U . S . 1, 25, 103 S . C t . 927, 942, 74 L . E d. 2d 765 ( 1983) ) . A l though the F A A s t a t e s tha t“ the U ni t e d S t a t e s c our ti n a nd f orthe di s tr i c tw he r e i n the [ a rbi tr a t i on] a w a r d w a s m a de m a y m a ke a n or de r ” va c a t i ng, m odi f y i ng, orc orr e c t i ng the a w a r d upon appl i c a t i on by a pa r ty t o the a rbi tr a t i on, s e e 9 U . S . C . §§ 10- 11, m ot i ons unde rthe s e pr ovi s i ons be gi n a s e pa r a t e pr oc e e di ng a nd ve nue i s notl i m i t e d t o the di s tr i c tof the a rbi tr a t i on, s e e C or t e z B y r d C hi ps , I nc . v. B i l l H a rbe r tC ons t . C o. , 529 U . S . 193, 1 9 7 - 2 0 4 , 1 2 0 S .C t. 1 3 3 1 , 1 3 3 5 - 3 9 , 1 4 6 L .E d .2 d 1 7 1 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . T he F A A , how e ve r , ne i the rc onf e r s s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on ove rpe t i t i ons t o va c a t e a rbi tr a t i on a w a r ds , nordoe s i tc r e a t e i nde pe nde ntf e de r a l que s t i on j uri sdi ct i on . P ee bl es , 43 1 F . 3d at13 25 . T hu s, “ [i ] nd ependentgrou nd s f or subj ec t m att erj uri sdi ct i on m ustbe dem on stra t ed. ” I d. U nd er28 U . S . C . § 1 33 2, di stri ct c our t s ha ve or i gi na l s ubj e c tm a tt e rj ur i s di c t i on ove rc i vi l a c t i ons w he r e ( 1) the a m o u n t in c o n tr o v e r s y e x c e e d s th e s u m o rv a lu e o f $ 7 5 ,0 0 0 , a n d ( 2 ) th e a c tio n is be tw e e n c i t i z e ns of

di f f e r e nts t a t e s . 28 U . S . C . § 1332( a ) ( 1) . B e c a us e the E ve ni ngF or purp os e s o f § 13 32 and

§ 1 44 1, a c or po ra tio n isa c iti zen of any stateby whic h it 4 ha s b e e n in c or

po rate d a nd of thestatewh e reit h a s it s p rinc ipal pl a c eof bu sin e ss. Se e28 U. S.C. § 1332(c) (1). 8 Jo u rn al d i d n o tco n t estth atth e i n st an tact i o n i n v o l v ed ci t i zen s o f d i fferen tst at es, 4 a nd be c a us e the a m ounti n c ontr ove r s y , a tl e a s ta s r e f l e c t e d on the f

a c e of T usca no ’ s c om pl ai nt , exce eded $7 5, 00 0, di vers i ty j uri sdi ct i on exi st ed. T he di stri ct court , thu s, erre d i n con cl ud i ng thati tl ac ked subj ec tm att erj uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew T u s c a n o ’s c o m p la in t. R eg ard l ess, w e affi rm th e co u rt ’ s d i sm i ssal o f th e i n st an tco m p l ai n tb ecau se the com pl ai nti s c l ea rl y barre d b y the do ctri ne of re s j ud i ca t a. S ee F i sherm an A ga i ns tD e s truc t i on of

E nvi r onm e nt , I nc . v. C l os t e rF a r m s , I nc . , 300 F . 3d 1294, 12 96 -97 (11 th C i r. 20 02 ) ( di sc ussi ng thatw e m ay af fi rm a dec i si on of the di stri ct c our tba s e d “ on a ny a de qua t e gr ound, e ve n i f i ti s othe rtha n the one on w hi c h the co u rtactu al l y rel i ed ”). “ B arri n g a cl ai m o n th e b asi s o f res j u d i cat a i s a de t e r m i na t i on of

l a w ” tha tw e r e vi e w de novo. R a gs da l e v. R ubbe rm a i d, I nc . , 193 F . 3d 12 35 , 12 38 (11t h C i r. 19 99 ). T o the e xt e ntthe di s tr i c tc our tpr e vi ous l y di s m i s s e d c i vi l a c t i ons f i l e d by T us c a no, w e appl y f

e de r a l l a w , be c a us e “ f

e de r a l pr e c l us i on pr i nc i pl e s appl y t o pr i or f e de r a l de c i s i ons , w he the rpr e vi ous l y de c i de d i n di ve r s i ty orf e de r a l que s t i on j uri sdi ct i on . ” E . E . O . C . v. P em co A er op l ex, Inc. , 38 3 F . 3d 12 80 , 12 85 (11t h C i r.To the extent that the district court dismissed with prejudice Tusc ano’s August 2004 5 complaint ag ainst the EveningStar, based on Tuscano’ s failureto serve theEveningStar, the former Fifth Circuit explained that a dismissal of a suit for f ailure to prose cute serves a s an adjudication on the merits. S ee B ierman v. Ta mpa Elec . Co., 604 F.2d 929, 930-31 ( 5th Cir. 1979). 9 20 04 ) ( qu ot at i on om i tt ed). T he do ctri ne of re s j ud i ca t a bar s the fi l i ng of cl ai m s that w e r e r a i s e d orc oul d ha ve be e n r a i s e d i n a n e a r l i e rpr oc e e di ng. R a gs da l e , 183 F . 3d at12 38 . A cl ai m i s barre d b y thi s doctri ne i f a l l four of the fol l ow i ng el em ent s a re m et : “ (1 ) th ere i s a fi n al j u d g m en to n th e m eri t s; (2 ) th e d eci si o n w as ren d ered b y a courtof com pet entj uri sdi ct i on ; (3) the part i es , or tho se i n p ri vi ty w i th them , ar e i dent i ca l i n b oth sui t s; and (4) the sa m e c ause of ac t i on i s i nv ol ved i n b oth cas es . ” I d . W e e xpl a i ne d i n R a gs da l e tha t , “ i f a c a s e a r i s e s outof

the s a m e nuc l e us of ope r a t i ve f

a c t , ori s ba s e d upon the s a m e f a c tua l pr e di c a t e , a s a f

or m e ra c t i on, the tw o cas es ar e r ea l l y the sa m e ‘ cl ai m ’ or ‘ cause of a ct i on ’ for purpo se s of r es j udi c a t a . ” S e e i d. a t1239. H e r e , the di s tr i c tc our tpr e vi ous l y di s m i s s e d a c t i ons T us c a no br oughta ga i ns tthe E ve ni ng S t a rori t s ow ne r , a nd thi s pr i orl i t i ga t i on i nv ol ved t he sa m e a rbi tra t i on aw ar d and j ud gm entre l at i ng t o thi s a w ar d. S ee T us c a no, C a s e N o. 8: 05- c v- 112 a t2- 3. T hus , w e c onc l ude tha tthe i ns t a nta c t i on w a s ba rr e d by the doc tr i ne of r e s j udi c a t a . S e e R a gs da l e , 183 F . 3d a t1238- 39. 510

F ur the r m or e , t o the e xt e ntN e w J e r s e y c our t s pr e vi ous l y a ddr e s s e d a nd re jected claim s r elatin g to th e 1 9 7 9 arb itra ti o n aw ar d an d th e 1 9 8 0 ju d g m en t, “a f e de r a l c our tc a nnotgi ve pr e c l us i ve e f f e c tt o a s t a t e c our tor de r , i n s ubs e que nt l i t i gat i on , w i tho utdet erm i ni ng w hether the st at e f rom w hi ch the order w as re nd er ed w oul d gi ve tha tor de rpr e c l us i ve e f f e c tthr ough the ope r a t i on of the r e nde r i ng st at e’ s l aw of re s j ud i ca t a [ ] . ” U rf i re r v. C ornfel d, 40 8 F . 3d 71 0, 71 7 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ). U nd erN ew Je rs ey l aw , re s j ud i ca t a has the pu rpose of prevent i ng re l i t i g at i o n o f th e sam e co n tro v ersy b etw een th e sam e p art i es. B ro o k sh i re E q u i t i es, L L C v . M o n ta q u iz a , 3 4 6 N .J .S u p e r . 3 1 0 , 3 1 8 , 7 8 7 A .2 d 9 4 2 , 9 4 7 ( A p p . D iv . 2 0 0 2 ) . F orr e s j udi c a t a t o appl y , the r e m us tbe : “ ( 1) a f i na l j udgm e ntby a c our tof c o m p e te n t ju r is d ic tio n , ( 2 ) id e n tity o f is s u e s , ( 3 ) id e n tity o f

p a r tie s , a n d ( 4 ) id e n tity o f th e c a u s e o f

a c tio n .” I d . ( q u o ta tio n o m itte d ) . S i m i l arl y, u n d er N ew Jersey’ s “ en t i re co n tro v ersy d o ctri n e, ” a p l ai n t i ff m u st a s s e r ta l l c l a i m s a r i s i ng f r om a s i ngl e c ontr ove r s y i n a s i ngl e a c t i on “ a tthe r i s k of be i ng pr e c l ude d f

r om a s s e r t i ng the m i n the f utur e . ” I n r e E s t a t e of

G a br e l l i a n, 372 N .J .S u p e r . 4 3 2 , 4 4 4 , 8 5 9 A .2 d 7 0 0 , 7 0 7 ( A p p . D iv . 2 0 0 4 ) . T h e p u rp o s e s o f th is do ctri ne ar e: “ (1) the need for com pl et e a nd fi nal di sposi t i on throu gh the avoi dance of pi ec em ea l deci si on s; (2) f ai rnes s t o p art i es t o the ac t i on and t ho se w i th a m at er i al i nt e r e s ti n the a c t i on; a nd ( 3) e f f i c i e nc y a nd the a voi da nc e of w a s t e a nd theBe causethe doctrineof re s judicata is applica ble in the instant case , we ne ed not 6 deter mine whether

the ac tion also was time-bar red. 11 r e duc t i on of

de l a y . ” I d. ( quot a t i on om i tt e d) . T hi s doc tr i ne appl i e s t o s uc c e s s i ve s u its w ith r e la te d c la im s th a t w e r e k n o w n d u r in g th e tim e o f th e o r ig in a l a c tio n . I d . M oreover, i ti s “ the fa ctual ci rc um st ance s gi vi ng ri se t o the cont rovers y i t se l f, r a the rtha n the c om m ona l i ty of c l a i m s , i s s ue s orpa r t i e s , tha ttr i gge r s the r e qui r e m e ntof

j oi nde rt o c r e a t e a c ohe s i ve a nd c om pl e t e l i t i ga t i on. ” I d. ( quot a t i on o m itte d ) . In the i nst antac t i on , T usca no as se rt ed thatthe E veni ng Journal , w hi ch had notf ul l y c om pl i e d w i th the 1980 j udgm e ntr e l a t i ng t o the 1979 a rbi tr a t i on a w a r d, s t i l l ow e d hi m $106, 995, i . e . $134, 115, the a m ounta l l e ge dl y ow e d t o hi m pur s ua nt t o the arbi tra t i on aw ar d, l es s $27 , 12 0, the am ou ntthe E veni ng S t aral l egedl y had p a id h im . T u s c a n o , h o w e v e r , e ith e ra s s e r te d , o rc o u ld h a v e a s s e r te d , th e s e c la im s in hi s pr i ors t a t e a c t i ons a tt a c ki ng thi s j udgm e nta nd a w a r d. S e e ge ne r a l l y T us c a no, C a s e N o. 8: 05- c v- 112 a t2. T hus , e ve n i f w e w e r e t o c onc l ude tha tT us c a no w a s not b a rr e d f r o m p u r s u i n g th e i n s t a n ta c t i o n b y h i s p r i o rd i s tr i c tc o u r ta c t i o n s , we c o n c lu d e th a t h e is b a rr e d b a s e d o n e ith e rh is p r io rin c lu s io n , o rh is f a ilu r e to i nc l ude , hi s c l a i m s i n hi s pr i ors t a t e c our ta c t i ons . S e e B r ooks hi r e E qui t i e s , 346 N . J . S upe r . a t318, 787 A . 2d a t947; s e e a l s o I n r e E s t a t e of G a br e l l i a n, 372 N . J . S upe r . a t444, 859 A . 2d a t707. 612

F in a lly , to th e e x te n t T u s c a n o is a r g u in g th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t e rr e d in de ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r e m a nd the c a s e ba c k t o the s t a t e c our t , w e r e vi e w de novo a di s tr i c tc our t ’ s de ni a l of a m ot i on t o r e m a nd. B e hl e n v. M e rr i l l L y nc h, 311 F . 3d 10 87 , 10 90 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ). A s T usca no cont ends, “ [i ] f a tany t i m e bef ore f i nal j u d g m en ti tap p ears th atth e d i stri ctco u rtl ack s su b j ectm att er j u ri sd i ct i o n , th e case s h a l l b e r e ma n d e d ” t o th e s t a t e c o u r tf r o m w h e r e i tw a s r e mo v e d . Se e 2 8 U . S. C. § 1 44 7(c) . M oreover, because § 14 47 (c ) i s m andat ory, i tm ay no tbe di sr egar ded ba s e d on s pe c ul a t i on a boutthe pr oc e e di ng’ s f ut i l i ty i n s t a t e c our t . S e e U ni v. of S o u th A la . v . A m e r ic a n T o b a c c o C o ., 1 6 8 F .3 d 4 0 5 , 4 1 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . H ow e ve r , a s di s c us s e d a bove , di ve r s i ty j ur i s di c t i on e xi s t e d i n the i ns t a nta c t i on, a nd re m and w as no tm andat ory. S ee i d. (e xp l ai ni ng that , i f j uri sdi ct i on exi st s, re m ov al is ap p r o p r ia te a n d th e c o u r t m a y p r o c e e d to th e m e r its o f th e c a s e ) . A c c o r d in g ly , w e c o n c lu d e th a t, a lth o u g h th e d is tr ic t c o u r t h a d ju r is d ic tio n in the i nst antca se , i t s di sm i ss al w i th p re j ud i ce of T usca no ’ s c om pl ai ntw as w arra nt ed because the com pl ai ntw as barr ed un der the do ctri ne of re s j ud i ca t a. F urtherm ore, the di stri ctcourtdi d n oterr i n d enyi ng T usca no ’ s m ot i on t o rem and t he ca se back t o s t a t e c o u r t . W e , th e r e f o r e , a f f i r m. AF F I RME D.