Duffy & McGovern v. QCI Mrne Offshr LLC
Filing
920070327
Opinion
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________ No. 06-20770 Summary Calendar _____________________ DUFFY & McGOVERN ACCOMMODATION SERVICES, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus QCI MARINE OFFSHORE, LLC, Defendant - Appellant. _________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division USDC No. 4:05-CV-2360 _________________________________________________________________ Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* QCI Marine Offshore, LLC ("QCI") appeals the district court's order applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel to enjoin QCI's state court lawsuit against Duffy & McGovern Accommodation Services ("DMAS"). Finding that the district court did not abuse its
March 27, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk
discretion, we affirm. This case is before us for a second time. The facts and Duffy &
procedural history are set forth in our previous opinion.
McGovern Accommodation Services v. QCI Marine Offshore, Inc., 448 F.3d 825 (5th Cir. 2006). In the first appeal, we considered whether
the district court's order upholding the validity of the forum
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
*
selection
clause
and
dismissing
the
breach
of
contract
action
precluded QCI from pursuing the same claims against DMAS in state court. We concluded that the requirements for collateral estoppel
were met as a matter of law, and remanded to the district court for the discretionary determination whether the doctrine could fairly be applied in this case. court concluded that QCI, 448 F.3d at 831. there was no bar On remand, the district to the application of
collateral estoppel and enjoined the parties from proceeding in state court. On appeal, QCI argues that fairness considerations preclude the application of collateral estoppel in this case. QCI maintains that
DMAS manipulated the judicial system and wasted judicial resources by seeking relief in federal court after attempting to defend its case unsuccessfully in state court. The record makes clear, however, that this course of action was forced by QCI's attempt to undercut an adverse ruling by the federal court by initiating a second state court lawsuit, rather than pursuing its federal appeal. abuse of discretion.** The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. We find no
QCI also argues that this court erred in its determination that the Texas state court's decision denying DMAS collateral estoppel barred the federal courts from considering this argument. "Absent an intervening Supreme Court or en banc decision or a change in the statutory law, we are bound to follow the prior panel's decision." United States v. Anderson, 853 F.2d 313, 320 (5th Cir. 1988). This argument is therefore foreclosed.
**
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?