Opinion
Civil Action No. 98-10508-DPW.
January 4, 2005
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case was stayed pending resolution of a parallel state class action in which the plaintiff was a member of the class.See Davila v. Maloney (1st Cir. 99-2193 Dec. 27, 2000). The state class action has proceeded to final judgment, Haverty v. Commissioner, 437 Mass. 737 (2002), although proceedings to implement that judgment have continued, Haverty v. Commissioner, 440 Mass. 1 (2003). As a class member, the plaintiff is bound by the final resolution of the state case.See generally Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367, 379 (1996); Cooper v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Richmond, 467 U.S. 867, 874 (1984); Reppert v. Marvin Lumber and Cedar Co., Inc., 359 F.3d 53, 56 (1st Cir. 2004).
I "look to the law of the state where the prior judgment was entered to determine the res judicata consequences of that judgment." Reppert, 359 F.3d at 58. Under basic principles ofres judicata in Massachusetts, the state judgment resolved all claims that were or could have been raised in that first concluded action. See Ratner v. Rockwood Srrinkler Co., 340 Mass. 773, 775 (1960); Charlette v. Charlette Bros. Foundry, Inc., 793 N.E.2d 1268, 1276 (Mass.App.Ct. 2003); Gloucester Marine Railways Corp. v. Charles Perisi, Inc., 631 N.E.2d 1021 (Mass.App.Ct. 1994). While the plaintiff claims that damages were not assessed in the earlier class action, there is no reason other than litigation strategy why they could not have been pressed and resolved in that matter. There is no indication, in any event, that the question of damages was somehow reserved for this Court.
I note the Reppert court was "unaware of . . . any cognizable precedent holding that the type of relief sought in any way factors into the res judicata formula. Succinctly, it is the operative facts and the underlying causes of actions that are of determinative relevance." 359 F.3d at 57.
Accordingly, the defendants' motion for summary judgment is hereby GRANTED.