Court Opinion

ID: 9464265
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:29:08.169179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:32.538042
License: Public Domain

WEICK, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
This appeal, involving important questions of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, res ajudicata, and conflicts between federal and state courts of concurrent jurisdiction where the state court action was based on in personam jurisdiction and had proceeded to final judgment with the permission of the federal court, certainly merited en banc consideration by this Court and affirmance of the judgment of the District Court.
LaFatch had been acquitted by a directed verdict of acquittal in the District Court on a charge of extortion, and had been acquitted by a jury on a charge of violating the Travel Act. After his acquittal LaFatch filed a motion in the District Court seeking the return to him of $50,000, which sum had been paid to him for services by MM Corporation. This money had been seized from him by the F.B.I. and was deposited in the registry of the Court.
MM Corporation, by papers filed in the District Court, opposed LaFatch’s motion on the ground that it had filed suit against LaFatch to recover such moneys and punitive damages in the Common Pleas Court of Franklin County, Ohio, where it could obtain a jury trial. The Common Pleas Court is a court of general jurisdiction, whereas the District Court has limited jurisdiction.
The District Court permitted the parties to proceed with the trial of said action in the state court, which court, as before stated, had acquired in personam jurisdiction over both parties. The jury returned a verdict against LaFatch in the amount of $15,000, and judgment was entered thereon. MM Corporation appealed therefrom to the Court of Appeals of Franklin County, Ohio, on the ground of inadequacy of the verdict and judgment. Later MM Corporation voluntarily dismissed its appeal, and the judgment of the state court against LaFatch became final. I submit that the state court judgment became final against MM Corporation as well as against LaFatch.
MM Corporation then filed its motion in the District Court seeking the return to it of the $50,000, although it had previously opposed federal jurisdiction in favor of the suit which it had filed in the state court. The District Judge properly held that the judgment of the state court was res adjudi-cata and ordered the money in the registry turned over to LaFatch.
The Constitutional issue concerning the Full Faith and Credit Clause has been adequately briefed by counsel for LaFatch. I desire only to refer to 14 Federal Practice and Procedure, Wright-Miller-Cooper § 3631 pages 19-21, where the authors state, with citation of authority:
It is not considered an interference with one court’s exclusive control of a res for another court to adjudicate the right of an individual to that res in an in person-am action. An action to establish a right to share in property in the custody of another court may be brought whether the res is in the custody of a state or federal court, and the decision is binding on the court that has possession of the property, so long as a decision has not yet been rendered in that court.
MM Corporation has been playing “fast and loose” with the federal and state courts. We ought not to approve this type of conduct. If the decision of the panel is upheld, it could result in MM Corporation’s recovery of the $50,000 from the registry of the Court by judgment of the District Court, and an additional $15,000 by judgment in its favor in the state court. In other words, the state court judgment is res ajudicata against LaFatch, but not against MM Corporation.
*86MM Corporation’s argument that the $15,000 judgment represents interest is frivolous. The record in .the state court establishes the untruthfulness of that contention. Furthermore, money deposited in the District Court’s registry does not draw interest.
One other matter deserves mention. The establishment of State-Federal Judicial Councils was for a useful and laudable purpose. That purpose will be frustrated by federal decisions overturning final judgments of state courts.