Opinion ID: 3010396
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Claimants waive any claim of res judicata

Text: based upon any judgment obtained in the State Court proceeding. 2. Consolidation Coal Company shall have the right to litigate all issues relating to its claim of limitation and exoneration of liability in the present proceeding. . . . 3. The issue of valuation of the limitation fund shall remain an issue to be resolved by the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. . . . App. at 132. At the same time, the district court administratively dismissed the limitation action subject to reopening after conclusion of the state court proceedings. Newman entered into this stipulation even though he could have rejected it. He instead could have appealed to this court from the denial of a motion to dissolve the injunction if the district court refused to dissolve the injunction without the stipulation. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). The case then continued in the state court where in November 1991, Newman (his wife had withdrawn her claims) obtained a verdict finding Consol negligent and the vessel unseaworthy and setting Newman's damages at $1,327,000.1 With the exception of an issue concerning interest, the Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed the judgment of the common pleas court; it thus did not disturb any of the jury's factual findings. The Pennsylvania and United States Supreme Courts then respectively denied petitions for allocatur and certiorari. On June 15, 1995, Newman moved to have the limitation action revived.2 After the court restored the case, Newman _________________________________________________________________ 1. The jury also found Newman 11.83% contributorily negligent. The state court molded the verdict to $1,244,519.50 after making certain adjustments we need not detail. 2. The evidence at the trial showed that the tug and barge had a total value of $120,000, far less than the damages Newman recovered in the state court. 3 filed a motion seeking to have the district court adopt the findings of the state jury, but the district court denied that motion. Newman then appealed that denial to this court and petitioned this court for a writ of mandamus to grant him similar relief. We, however, dismissed the appeal, which clearly was not from a final judgment, and denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. The district court thereafter adopted the jury's assessment of damages. Accordingly, the district court at a bench trial heard the limitation action de novo on liability as well as on certain admiralty issues, which we need not here set forth. The district court found in favor of Consol on liability, rendering the remaining issues moot.