2006 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 7-7-2006 

# H of m ann v . P res s m an T

oy 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 . 05-3681

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 anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006

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 ll anova 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 2006 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova 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 ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " H of m ann v . P r e s s m an T

o y " (2006). 2006 D e cisio n s . P ape r 774. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2006/774NOT 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. 05- 3681 E L S A O. HOF M ANN, A ppel l ant

v. P RE S S M AN T OY C OR P OR AT I ON; J AM E S P RE S S M AN; S AM GOL DB E RG ; S USAN ADAM O; W . DREW K AST NER; J OS E P H H. L E S S E M , E S Q. O n ap p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt Forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s ey ( D . N . J . C i v. N o. 05- cv- 02456) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am J. M art i ni S u b m itted U n d er T h ir d C ir cu itL A R 3 4 . 1 (a)

J ul y5, 2006 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , SM I T H A N D V A N A N T W E R PE N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed: J ul y7, 2006 ) OPI NI ON O F THE COURT P E R C UR I AM E lsa O . H o fm an n ap p ea ls pro se f rom an o rde r of

the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew J er s eydi s m i s s i ng hercompl ai nt . H ofm ann fi l ed the under l y i ng l aw s ui ti n N ew J er s eySuper i orC our t , al l egi ng thatA ppel l ees ’ chi l dr en’ s game, “D i zzyT he D i s tr i ctC our thas s i nce va cat ed i t s aw ar d of att orney s ’ fee s and cos t s , ther eby 1 re n d e ri n g th a t p o rt io n o f H o f m a n n ’s a p p e a l a n d h e r “ M o tio n T o S ta yJ u d g m e n t” m o o t. See H ofm ann v. Pr es s m an ToyC orp. , N o. 05- cv- 02456 ( or derent er ed on February9, 2006) . A l though H ofm ann ar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s or dervaca t ed the j udgm entof d ism iss a l as w e ll, th e lan g u a g e o f th e o rd e r c lea rlysh o w s o th e rw ise : “O rd e re d th a t th is C o u rt ’s O rde r of

Ju ly2 5 , 2 0 0 5 (D o c. N o . 1 9 ) a s to th e g ra n t o f a tto rn e y ’s fe e s a n d

c o sts is V A C A T E D . ” S ee id. ( em p h asis ad d ed ). 2 Di z z yDi n o s a u r , ” i n f

r i n g e d o n h e rc o p yr i g h tf o rh e ru n p u b l i s h e d c h i l d r e n ’ s g a me “Pr ehi s t or i c A ni m al G ame. ” O verH ofm ann’ s obj ect i ons , A ppel l ees r emoved t he ac t i on t o the D i s tr i ctC our tand moved t o di s m i s s H ofm ann’ s compl ai ntpur s uantt o Feder al R ul es of C i vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 5) and ( 6) . I n thei rm ot i on, A ppel l ees ar gued that H ofm ann had notpr oper l ys erved the compl ai ntand thatthe doctr i nes of r es j udi cat a and coll at eral est op pel barred her cl ai m . A pp el l ees al so m ov ed fo r R ule 11 sancti on s agai nst H ofm ann. T he D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed A ppel l ees ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s , not i ng that H ofm ann’ s compl ai ntcont ai ned the s ame cl ai m s and i s s ues r ai s ed i n pr evi ous l yfi l ed ( and dis m i ssed) com plai nts dati ng back t o 1 99 0. T he D i stri ctC ou rtal so grant ed A pp el l ees’ R u le 1 1 m o tio n , a w a rd in g th e m a tto rn e y s ’ f e e s a n d c o s ts in a ju d g m e n t a g a in s t H o f m a n n . H ofm ann t i m el yappea l ed fr om both the j udgm entof di s m i s s al and the j udgm ent aw ardi ng at t orney s’ fees and cost s. 1 T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1338. W e have ap p ell ate jurisdicti o n u n d er 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 2 9 1 . O u r rev iew o f th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s d ism issal un d er R u le 12 (b)(6 ) i s p lena ry , see N am i v. Fa u v er, 82 F . 3 d 6 3 , 6 5 (3d C ir . 1996) , as i s ourr evi ew of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s appl i cat i on of the doctr i nes of cl ai m andI n or dert o m i ni m i ze c onfus i on ar i s i ng fr om the fr equenti nt er change abl e us e of 2 “r es j udi cat a” a nd “col l at er al es t oppel , ” w e us e the t erm “cl ai m pr ecl us i on” i ns t ead of “r es j udi cat a” a nd “i s s ue pr ecl us i on” i ns t ead of “col l at er al es t oppel . ” See Ri derv. P en n sy lvan ia, 8 5 0 F . 2 d 9 8 2 , 9 8 9 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). See, e. g. , H ofm ann v. Pr es s m an ToyC orp. , D . N . J . C i v. N o. 97- 599 ( H on. 3 N i chol as H . Pol i t an) ; H ofm ann v. Pr es s m an ToyC orp. , D . N . J . C i v. N o. 97- 532 ( H on. M aryL . C ooper ) ; H ofm ann v. Pr es s m an ToyC orp. , D . N . J . C i v. N o. 96- 5740 ( H on. N i chol as H . Pol i t an) ; H ofm ann v. Pr es s m an ToyC orp. , D . N . J . C i v. N o. 95- 0752 ( H on. M aryL . C o o p er). 3 i s s ue pr ecl us i on, w hi ch form s the bas i s forthe di s m i s s al . See C hur chi l l v. St ar 2 E nt erpr i s es , 183 F. 3d 184, 189 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) . W e ac ceptas true the fa ctual al l egat i ons cont ai ned i n the compl ai ntand al l r eas onabl e i nfer ence s that can be dr aw n fr om them, and w e det erm i ne w hether , underanyr eas onabl e r eadi ng of the p le a d in g s , H o f

m a n n m a yb e e n title d to re lie f. S e e N a m i, 8 2 F .3 d a t 6 5 . H ofm ann’ s fi r s tcopyr i ghts ui ti n the D i s tr i ctC our tbas ed on “D i zzyD i zzy Di n o s a u r ” wa s f

i l e d i n 1 9 9 0 a n d wa s h e a r d b e f o r e th e Ho n o r a b l e Di c k i n s o n R. D ebevoi s e. See H ofm ann v. Pr es s m an ToyC orp. , 790 F. Supp. 498 ( D . N . J . 1990) , aff’ d, 94 7 F . 2d 93 5 (3d C i r. 19 91 ). Judg e D ebev ois e grant ed sum m aryj ud gm ent agai nst H ofm ann, hol di ng thats he coul d notm ake outa copyr i ghtcl ai m beca us e ther e w as no evi dence thatthe def

endant s had ac ces s t o herw or k. See i d. at505. H ofm ann fi l ed four s ubs equentcompl ai nt s i n t he D i s tr i ctC our t , r ai s i ng the s ame cl ai m bas ed on “D i zzy D izzyD ino sau r. ” E ac h o f th o se c o m p lai n ts w as d ism issed , an d the d ism issals w ere 3 a f f ir m e d o n a p p e a l. C l ai m pr ecl us i on and i s s ue pr ecl us i on ar e r el at ed, butdi s t i nct , conce pt s . W her eas cl ai m pr ecl us i on pr event s a partyfr om r e- l i t i gat i ng cl ai m s s he mi ghthave butdi d not4

as s erti n the fi r s tact i on, i s s ue pr ecl us i on for ecl os es onl ya mat t eractual l yl i t i gat ed and e ss e n tial to th e d e c isio n . S e e G re g o ryv . C h e h i, 84 3 F .2 d 1 1 1 , 1 1 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 8 ). B o th cl ai m and i s s ue pr ecl us i on s erve the s ame pol i cygoal s of cons ervat i on of j udi ci al r es our ces , fos t er i ng r el i ance on j udi ci al act i on, and avoi dance of the expe ns e and vexat i on acc om pany i ng m ul t i pl e l aw s ui t s . See E. E . O . C . v. U . S. St eel C orp. , 921 F. 2d 489, 492 ( 3d C i r . 1990) ( i nt ernal ci t at i on om i t t ed) . See al s o A s t or i a Fed. Sav. & L oan A s s ’ n v. Sol i m i no , 501 U . S. 104, 107 ( 1991) ( I s s ue pr ecl us i on pr om ot es the pol i cythat“a l os i ng l i t i gantdes erves no r emat ch af t era def eatfai r l ys uffe r ed, i n adver s ar i al pr ocee di ngs , on an i s s ue i dent i cal i n s ubs t ance t o the one he s ubs equent l ys eeks t o r ai s e. ”) H ofm ann’ s 70- page c om pl ai nti s a r ambl i ng expos i t i on focus i ng on J udge D ebevoi s e’ s al l eged e r r or s i n t he 1990 pr ocee di ngs . H ofm ann ar gues thathercurr ent compl ai ntdi ffe r s fr om herpr evi ous compl ai nt s beca us e i ti ncl udes al l egat i ons that A p p e llee s c o p ied e lem e n ts o f h e r g a m e “ M in in g In O u ter S p a c e ” in a d d iti o n to “P rehi st ori c A nim al G am e. ” W hil e t he cu rr ent com plai nt does con t ai n such al l egati on s, this do es n o t r ed ee m itfro m eith er c lai m o r i ssu e p rec lusion . H o fm an n ’s “M ining In O u ter S p ac e” all eg ati o n s are inex tr icab le fro m h er u n d erly ing “D izzyD izzyD ino sau r” c la im a n d d o n o t c o n s titu te a s e p a ra te “ c la im .” Si m i l ar l y , t o t he ext entthatthes e al l egat i ons ar e vi ew ed as an “i s s ue” r atherthan a “cl ai m , ” theyhave be en pr evi ous l yl i t i gat ed. H ofm ann as s ert s thats he pr es ent ed evi dence s uppor t i ng her“M i ni ng I n O ut erSpace” al l egat i ons i n the 1990 pr ocee di ngs and th a t Ju d g e D e b e v o ise “ o v e rlo o k e d ” h e r e v id e n c e , b e c a u se h e “p re f e rre d to g o a lo n g w ith5

L esse m ’s pe rj u rythat n o n e o f m ysp ac e g am es w ere inv o lved than [to ] rev iew the p ap ers b e f o re h im w h e n h e d id h is R u le 7 8 o n th e p a p e rs .” S e e A p p e lla n t’ s B ri e f a t 8 -9 . H o f m a n n , h e rse lf

, thu s in d ica tes th a t th e “ M in in g In O u ter S p a c e ” iss u e w a s “ a c tu a lly l i t i gat ed. ” See M other ’ s R es t aur ant , I nc. v. M ama’ s Pi zza , I nc. , 723 F. 2d 1566, 1570 ( Fed. C i r . 1983) ( A n i s s ue i s “ac tual l yl i t i gat ed” i f i tw as di s put ed bythe part i es t o the or i gi nal act i on and r es ol ved bythe tr i erof fa ct . ) See al s o G i l l dorn Sav. A s s ’ n v. C om m er ce Sav. A s s ’ n, 804 F. 2d 390, 394- 95 ( 7th C i r . 1987) ( A n i s s ue nee d notbe d isp o se d o f

in a f u ll-b lo w n trial o r o p in io n o n th e m a tter in o rd e r to b e “ a c tu a lly l i t i gat ed. ”) Fur ther , the det erm i nat i on of the “M i ni ng I n O ut erSpace” i s s ue w as es s ent i al t o the 1990 j udgm ent , beca us e s um m aryj udgm entcoul d nothave be en gr ant ed i n favor of the def

endant s i n 1990 i f thi s i s s ue had pr es ent ed a “ genui ne i s s ue of mat er i al fac t . ” S e e F e d . R . C iv . P . 5 6 © . H o f m a n n ’s c h a llen g e to th e D istric t C o u rt’s r e so lu tio n o f th is i s s ue i s pr oper l ybr oughti n an appe al , w hi ch H ofm ann has al r eadypur s ued. A s H ofm ann h ad a “ fu ll an d fa iro p p o rtu n ity ” to lit igate this issue in h er e arli er c ase , the D istri ct C o u rt corr ect l ypr ecl uded herfr om r ai s i ng i tagai n. See R i der , 850 F. 2d at991 ( ci t i ng A l l en v. M cC u rry , 4 4 9 U . S . 9 0 , 9 5 (19 8 0 )). A fter a th o rou g h rev iew , w e a g ree w ith the D istri ct C o u rtthat H o fm an n ’s compl ai ntr ai s es no cl ai m s ori s s ues thatw er e notorcoul d nothave be en r ai s ed i n her p re v io u s litig a tio n . W e w ill , the re f o re , af f irm th e D istric t C o u rt’s ju d g m e n t o f d ism iss a l. H ofm ann’ s m ot i ons foror al ar gum ent , r evi ew of the C l erk’ s O r derdat ed D ece m ber9, 2005, defa ul tj udgm ent , and t o r emand t hi s cas e t o the D i s tr i ctC our tar e deni ed.