Opinion ID: 64150
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: All Writs Act and the Relitigation Exception

Text: Gunderson contends that it was improper for the district court to rely upon the All Writs Act and the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act to enjoin Gunderson from pursuing claims pending in both Louisiana state court and in the OWC. As explained in Regions Bank v. Rivet, this Court utilizes a four-part test to determine whether the relitigation exception to the AntiInjunction Act applies to preclude litigation of a claim in state court. 224 F.3d at 488. Specifically, (1) “the parties in a later action must be identical to (or at least in privity with) the parties in a prior action”; (2) “the judgment in the prior action must have been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction”; (3) “the prior action must have concluded with a final judgment on the merits”; and (4) “the same claim or cause of action must be involved in both suits.” Id. (5th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted). Gunderson argues that these requirements are not met in this case. We disagree. This section will address Regions Bank factors one, three, and four. Factor two is discussed below as it is related to a separate claim made by Gunderson. A. Factor One To the extent that Gunderson attempts to bring any claims, whether in federal court, state court, or the OWC, against Liberty Mutual involving the district court’s ruling at the summary judgment stage, the parties in the future actions would be identical, and res judicata applies. Vines v. Univ. of La., 398 F.3d 700, 709 (5th Cir. 2000). Gunderson does not dispute that he is precluded from bringing any claims of this nature against Liberty Mutual. Further, this Court finds that First Health and its “payors” are in privity with Liberty Mutual. “Privity is a ‘legal conclusion that the relationship between the one who is a party on the record and the non-party is sufficiently close to afford application of the principle of preclusion.’” Id. at 706. As this Court explained in Howell Hydrocarbons, Inc. v. Adams, a party is in privity with a 8 No. 08-30075 party for res judicata purposes “if the party adequately represented his interest in the prior proceeding.” 897 F.2d 183, 188 (5th Cir. 1990). Liberty Mutual and other “payors” entered into Provider Agreement contracts with First Health. Liberty Mutual and First Health actively disputed Gunderson’s claims that (1) the discount provisions contained in the Provider Agreements are unenforceable, and (2) that the payment provisions contained in the Provider Agreements do not apply to group purchasers or to agreements of group purchasers. The contractual relationship between First Health and its payors, as well as the identical litigation position against Gunderson in suits over these contractual provisions, evidence to this Court that First Health and its “payors” are in privity with Liberty Mutual. Factor One is satisfied. B. Factor Three Factor Three requires that the prior action conclude with a final judgment on the merits. The district court’s use of the relitigation exception and decision to issue a permanent injunction were based on its summary judgment ruling in favor of Liberty Mutual. Gunderson abandoned any ability to appeal the district court’s summary judgment ruling.4 Factor Three is satisfied.