• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Reinsurance Focus

New reinsurance-related and arbitration developments from Carlton Fields

  • About
    • Events
  • Articles
    • Treaty Tips
    • Special Focus
    • Market
  • Contact
  • Exclusive Content
    • Blog Staff Picks
    • Cat Risks
    • Regulatory Modernization
    • Webinars
  • Subscribe
You are here: Home / Arbitration / Court Decisions / Arbitration Process Issues / CIRCUIT COURTS ADDRESS RES JUDICATA CLAIMS IN ARBITRATION CONTEXT

CIRCUIT COURTS ADDRESS RES JUDICATA CLAIMS IN ARBITRATION CONTEXT

September 18, 2013 by Carlton Fields

The Second and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeal have both issued recent opinions regarding res judicata issues in the context of arbitrations. In Lobaito v. Chase Bank, No. 12-3492 (2d Cir. July 16, 2013), the Court affirmed a district court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of a complaint alleging the same claims as had been arbitrated to conclusion in a FINRA arbitration, in favor of the defendant bank, and against a pro se former employee of the bank. The Court held that the district court properly found res judicata applied to the claims – which were identical to the claims in the FINRA arbitration and between the same parties – and, even if res judicata did not apply, construing the pro se plaintiff’s claim as a motion to vacate the FINRA award, the Court found the plaintiff’s motion to vacate was untimely and futile anyway.

The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of an employer in a dispute with an employee, who was represented by his Union. Previous litigation between the parties as to the arbitrability of the employment dispute resulted in a district court decision in favor of the Union, which referred the parties to arbitration. However, before the arbitration commenced, the employer filed a new declaratory judgment action, arguing that the dispute was not arbitrable under the contract alleged by the Union in its arbitration claim, and sought an order precluding arbitration of the issue. The Court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment on its declaratory claim, finding the dispute as framed outside the purview of the contract alleged. However, the Eight Circuit Court reversed, finding that the district court failed to properly apply res judicata to the employer’s claim, because it could have been raised in the prior proceeding, which was decided in favor of the Union. Carlisle Power Transmission Products, Inc. v. U.S. Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers Int’l Union, Local No. 662, No. 12-2986 (8th Cir. Aug. 5, 2013).

This post written by John Pitblado.

See our disclaimer.

Filed Under: Arbitration Process Issues

Primary Sidebar

Carlton Fields Logo

A blog focused on reinsurance and arbitration law and practice by the attorneys of Carlton Fields.

Focused Topics

Hot Topics

Read the results of Artemis’ latest survey of reinsurance market professionals concerning the state of the market and their intentions for 2019.

Recent Updates

Market (1/27/2019)
Articles (1/2/2019)

See our advanced search tips.

Subscribe

If you would like to receive updates to Reinsurance Focus® by email, visit our Subscription page.
© 2008–2025 Carlton Fields, P.A. · Carlton Fields practices law in California as Carlton Fields, LLP · Disclaimers and Conditions of Use

Reinsurance Focus® is a registered service mark of Carlton Fields. All Rights Reserved.

Please send comments and questions to the Reinsurance Focus Administrators

Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please contact us. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites. This site may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions.