Summary
noting that the plaintiff “had chosen the forum in which the claim was litigated and the party or parties from whom relief had been sought” and “had had a prior opportunity to raise all claims relating to the disputed transaction” and that “[a]ll of the facts that are the basis of this suit were known to plaintiff at the time of the earlier action, including Andersen's alleged role in the so-called conspiracy”
Summary of this case from N.Y. Pizzeria, Inc. v. SyalOpinion
No. 1029, Docket 87-7059.
Argued April 28, 1987.
Decided June 29, 1987.
John P. Cahill, New York City, pro se.
Bertrand C. Sellier, New York City (Sidney H. Stein, Stein, Zauderer, Ellenhorn, Frischer Sharp, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee Arthur Andersen Co.
Daniel G. Gurfein, New York City (James F. Rittinger, David G. Curran, Satterlee Stephens, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee Chambers.
Julian Jawitz, Mineola, N.Y. (Carlino, Lefkowitz, Bornes Bolstad, P.C., Mineola, N.Y., on the brief), for defendants-appellees Murphy, Carlino, Haley and Gillen.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Before FEINBERG, Chief Judge, KEARSE and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff pro se John P. Cahill appeals from a December 22, 1986 judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ("1986 Judgment"), Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum, Judge, (1) summarily dismissing his complaint against defendant Arthur Andersen Company ("Andersen"), which alleged that Anderson had conspired with others in violation of, inter alia, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (1982), and § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (1982), to force Cahill to sell his interest in Corporate Time-Sharing Services, Inc., and (2) denying his motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) to vacate the judgment in Cahill v. Chambers, 82 Civ. 6327 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 14, 1983) ("1983 Judgment"), which had been entered pursuant to an agreement among all of the parties therein, who did not include Andersen, to settle Cahill's similar claims against the defendants therein. We find no abuse of discretion in the denial of relief from the 1983 Judgment, and we affirm the 1986 Judgment on the ground that the 1983 Judgment constituted as judicata for the reasons stated by Judge Cedarbaum in her opinion dated December 17, 1986, published at 659 F.Supp. 1115.