Opinion ID: 655794
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Wrongful Seizure Claim; Collateral Estoppel

Text: 6 On February 21, 1991, Intel obtained an ex parte order authorizing the seizure of counterfeit goods from Terabyte. The order was executed by federal marshals on February 26 and a post-seizure hearing was held on March 4, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(10)(A). Terabyte appeared at the hearing with counsel, but it did not contest the seizure. The order was confirmed. 7 In this action, Terabyte claims that the seizure order was obtained in bad faith and in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(4). The district court held that the claim was barred by collateral estoppel. 8 Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, bars the relitigation of issues actually adjudicated in previous litigation between the same parties. Clark v. Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., 966 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th Cir.1992). The issue must be identical to the one asserted in the prior litigation, must have been actually litigated, and must have been necessary to the prior judgment. Id. So long as Terabyte had a full and fair opportunity to litigate, collateral estoppel applies, although Terabyte failed to submit any evidence. See Peck v. Commissioner, 904 F.2d 525, 530 (9th Cir.1990). 9 The question raised by Terabyte's wrongful seizure claim is identical to that decided in the post-seizure hearing. The purpose of the hearing was to determine whether the seizure order was supported by the evidence and the law. See 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(10)(A). The district court necessarily decided that the evidence satisfied all of the statutory requirements for an ex parte order. At the time the district court entered summary judgment in this action, final judgment had been entered in the infringement action. Terabyte did not appeal the order confirming the seizure. The confirmation order was therefore sufficiently final for purposes of issue preclusion. See 18 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 4432 at 299 (1981). 10 Terabyte claims that it did not have a full and fair opportunity to contest the seizure order because it did not receive Intel's papers until the morning of the hearing. Terabyte received a copy of the order, supporting memoranda and evidence at the time of the seizure. The order required Terabyte to serve opposing papers and affidavits by March 1. Terabyte was at the hearing but did not suggest that it needed additional time. Hsu's declaration that he did not know of the hearing until he received Intel's supplementary papers on March 4 is insufficient to create a genuine issue as to whether Terabyte had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the seizure order. Terabyte did not contest the order then and is precluded from doing so now.