Court Opinion

ID: 9436701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 02:58:40.005235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:23.891997
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially:
I concur in Judge Carnes’ opinion for the court. Although plaintiffs failed to persuade the district court at this stage of the litigation that they could show with the requisite degree of certainty that all facts necessary to establish any particular element of any plaintiffs cause of action had been actually adjudicated and actually decided by the Phase I jury,1 I agree that it would be premature at this stage of the litigation to rule flatly that the Phase I findings cannot be given preclusive effect in these proceedings to contribute to or establish any element of any plaintiffs *1337claim. I agree that it would be premature at this stage of the litigation to conclude that later in this litigation plaintiffs will be unable to use some Phase I findings to contribute to or establish some particular element of a plaintiffs cause of action, perhaps in conjunction with other facts proved in this litigation. For example, see footnote 10 of Judge Carnes’ opinion for the court.

. Nor have plaintiffs arguments on appeal been persuasive in this regard. The generality of the Phase I findings present plaintiffs with a considerable task. The Florida issue preclusion law will have to be applied to specific facts demonstrated with the requisite certainty to have been adjudicated and decided by the Phase I jury (which plaintiffs thus far have not attempted to do). In order to use Phase I findings to help establish any particular element of any plaintiff’s cause of action, plaintiffs not only will have to do the foregoing, but it will also probably be necessary for plaintiffs to prove additional facts in this litigation.