Opinion ID: 355941
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of Federal Collateral Estoppel Principles.

Text: 36 Although the United States concedes that it is bound by the ruling on the negligence issue in the prior case if federal collateral estoppel rules apply, we think this problem bears some further discussion. In its landmark decision in Blonder-Tongue Labs, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313, 91 S.Ct. 1434, 28 L.Ed.2d 788 (1971), the Supreme Court ruled, in the context of a patent infringement suit, that the doctrine of mutuality need not apply under federal principles of collateral estoppel. See also, Zdanok v. Glidden Co., 327 F.2d 944 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 934, 84 S.Ct. 1338, 12 L.Ed.2d 298 (1964); Bruzewski v. United States,181 F.2d 419 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 865, 71 S.Ct. 87, 95 L.Ed. 632 (1950). This court has followed the modern doctrine favored in Blonder-Tongue and has ruled that under federal principles a party who has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate an issue decided in a prior suit may be precluded from relitigating that issue in a subsequent action, even though the subsequent adversary was not a party to the prior litigation. See, e. g., Poster Exchange, Inc. v. National Screen Service Corp., 517 F.2d 117 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1054, 96 S.Ct. 784, 46 L.Ed.2d 643 (1976); Rachal v. Hill, 435 F.2d 59 (5th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 403 U.S. 904, 91 S.Ct. 2203, 29 L.Ed.2d 680 (1971). In adopting this position we have cited the reasoning of Bruzewski to say: 37 A party who has had one fair and full opportunity to prove a claim and has failed in that effort, should not be permitted to go to trial on the merits of that claim a second time. Both orderliness and reasonable time saving in judicial administration require that this be so unless some overriding consideration of fairness to a litigant dictates a different result in the circumstances of a particular case. 38 Rachal, supra at 63 (original emphasis); Bruzewski, supra at 421. Thus, in precluding a party from relitigating an issue, the court must be satisfied not only that the party against whom estoppel is urged has had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the prior proceeding but also that application of the doctrine, under the circumstances, will not result in injustice to the party. Rachal, supra at 62. Moreover, the court must be satisfied that the application of res judicata or collateral estoppel does not contravene any overriding public policy. Garner v. Giarrusso, 571 F.2d 1330, 1336 (5th Cir. 1978); Moch, supra. 39 In considering fairness to the party against whom preclusion is urged, we have noted that there may be special difficulties in precluding a party who did not have the initiative in the prior action. James Talcott, Inc. v. Allahabad Bank, Ltd., 444 F.2d 451 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom., City Trade & Industries, Ltd. v. Allahabad Bank, Ltd., 404 U.S. 940, 92 S.Ct. 280, 30 L.Ed.2d 253 (1971). 2 Such a party may have been defending only against a relatively small claim in the prior case and thus may not have been motivated to litigate as vigorously as he would have had the subsequent case been tried first; moreover, he may have had no opportunity to choose or change the forum of the original action. Talcott, id. at 461, 462. See also Berner v. British Commonwealth Pacific Airlines, Ltd., 346 F.2d 532, 540 (2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 983, 86 S.Ct. 559, 15 L.Ed.2d 472 (1966). In Zdanok, 327 F.2d at 956, the Second Circuit also noted that offensive uses of collateral estoppel could result in anomalous results for a defendant in the multiple plaintiff tort context and suggested that considerations of fairness might rule out application of collateral estoppel where the party against whom the plea was asserted faced more than two successive tort actions. Thus, the offensive use of collateral estoppel calls for the courts to use special care in examining the circumstances to ascertain that the defendant has in fact had a full and fair opportunity to litigate and that preclusion will not lead to unjust results. See, e. g., United States v. United Airlines, 216 F.Supp. 709, 728 (E.D.Wash.1962), aff'd in relative part sub nom., United Airlines v. Wiener, 335 F.2d 379, 404 (9th Cir.), cert. dism'd, 379 U.S. 951, 85 S.Ct. 452, 13 L.Ed.2d 549 (1964). But as we said in Talcott, if they determine that his inability to choose a forum had no prejudicial effect, that he had a pressing motive to litigate fully, that there was extensive litigation of the issues, the prior judgment will be given effect regardless of his defensive position in the prior suit. 444 F.2d at 462. 3 One of the most important considerations is whether, at the time of the earlier action, the party could foresee that facts subject to estoppel could be important in future litigation. Mosher Steel Co. v. N. L. R. B., 568 F.2d 436, 440 (5th Cir. 1978). 40 Applying these tests to the instant case, the prior judgment clearly precludes relitigation of facts actually litigated and necessary to the earlier judgment. There was no prejudice to the United States in the choice of the Georgia district court as the forum; that court, as would any federal court in this Tort Claims action, applied Georgia law to the liability issue. Certainly the United States had a pressing need to litigate fully in the prior action, which resulted in a $350,000 judgment against the United States. That case thoroughly explored the relevant negligence questions at issue in the present case. Finally, it was entirely foreseeable that the facts of the prior judgment would be important in the present case, since charges of negligence in both cases involve identical circumstances. 41 We therefore rule that, since federal principles of collateral estoppel applied, the United States was precluded from relitigating issues essential to the prior judgment. Because of our ruling on the preclusive effect of that prior judgment, we need not reach the appellant's further contention that the district court was in clear error in finding no negligence; the identical issues of negligence were, of course, litigated in the prior action. However, because other issues in the case including that of proximate cause of damage to appellant were not disposed of in the prior judgment or necessary to it, we return the case to the district court for resolution of those outstanding questions. In ascertaining the precise preclusive effect of the prior judgment on particular issues, we refer the district court to the requirements set out, inter alia, in International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers v. Nix, 512 F.2d 125, 132 (5th Cir. 1975), and cases cited therein: (1) The issue to be concluded must be identical to that involved in the prior action; (2) in the prior action the issue must have been 'actually litigated'; and (3) the determination made of the issue in the prior action must have been necessary and essential to the resulting judgment. 42 REVERSED AND REMANDED.