Opinion ID: 329281
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dismissal of Count III, the Conspiracy Claim

Text: 32 Count III of the complaint alleges a conspiracy between the defendant and the union to breach the union's statutory duty of fair representation of the plaintiff and to deprive him of his rights under the collective bargaining agreement. Although not alleging a conspiracy, parallel allegations were made against the railroad alone in a 1971 suit entitled Kotakis v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co., No. 71 C 2184 (N.D.Ill.) There the railroad was accused of having renewed its decision to wrongfully discharge Plaintiff on May 20, 1971, after plaintiff had pursued his grievance on the property. Apparently this lawsuit forced the union to represent the plaintiff before the Adjustment Board commencing on February 18, 1972. 7 Consequently, plaintiff did not pursue the 1971 suit and it was dismissed for want of prosecution on March 17, 1973. Under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this dismissal operated as an adjudication on the merits of the 1971 suit. Since Count III of the instant suit challenges essentially the same conduct by the defendant as was challenged in the earlier suit and seeks essentially the same remedy (only reinstatement is no longer sought), the adjudication on the merits unfavorable to the plaintiff of the first suit precludes a favorable decision here. Plaintiff will not be allowed to relitigate the propriety of the discharge, which is the only participation alleged as to the defendant in the conspiracy and which was the central thrust of the earlier suit. Consequently, the district court was correct in holding that Count III against the railroad was barred by the order dismissing for want of prosecution the prior case filed by petitioner against the Railroad complaining of his discharge in Case No. 71 C 2184. 33 Judgment affirmed.