KM Enterprises, Inc. et al v. Global Traffic Technologies, LLC et al

Filing 68

ORDER by Judge Vince Chhabria granting 30 Motion to Dismiss (knm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

KM ENTERPRISES, INC., et al.,

Case No. 14-cv-04906-VC

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE

9
GLOBAL TRAFFIC TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants.

12

Re: Dkt. No. 30

KM Enterprises has sued Global Traffic Technologies ("GTT"), alleging that GTT has

13

violated antitrust laws. But KM Enterprises has already made these same allegations against GTT

14

in a federal lawsuit between the parties in the Minnesota. Even though KM Enterprises labeled its

15

claim in the Minnesota case as tortious interference, it complained of the same behavior by GTT

16

that KM Enterprises now alleges is an antitrust violation. In its opposition papers, KM Enterprises

17

does not dispute this. Nor does it dispute that the district court in Minnesota rendered a final

18

judgment on the merits in GTT's favor. Accordingly, the current lawsuit is barred by res judicata,

19

and is therefore dismissed with prejudice. See, e.g., United States v. Brekke, 97 F.3d 1043, 1047

20

(8th Cir. 1996) (holding there is res judicata if "(1) the prior judgment was rendered by a court of

21

competent jurisdiction; (2) the decision was a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the same cause

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

of action and the same parties were involved in both cases"); Hufsmith v. Weaver , 817 F.2d 455,
461 (8th Cir. 1987) (holding "if a case…is based upon the same factual predicate, as a former
action, the two cases are really the same 'claim' or 'cause of action' for purposes of res judicata).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 5, 2015
______________________________________
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge