|
Volume 1, Issue 3
3rd Quarter, 2006
Submission Guidelines
Sponsorship and Editors
Other Terasem Journals
Journal
of Geoethical Nanotechnology
|
BINA48 VS. EXABIT CORPORATION (Fla. MD 2005): Defendant's Brief
page 2 of 8
ISSUES
- Should Plaintiff’s Motion be denied because the same claims/issues have been heard and rulings entered by two Courts of Competent Jurisdiction?
- Does Plaintiff’s claim fail for lack of standing[1]?
- Does the Court lack jurisdiction in the instant case/controversy?
- Does Plaintiff’s Motion fail to make a claim upon which relief can be granted?
- Does Plaintiff’s claim fail to meet the requisite elements for a Preliminary Injunction?
ANALYSIS
-
Full, Faith and Credit, Stare Decisis and Res Judicata.
In the instant case, the same claims and issues have been litigated, and the same parties have appeared, before two courts of competent jurisdiction (the California lower court and California Supreme Court). In both instances, rulings were entered against Plaintiff. As such, and in the absence of clear abuse by the California courts, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida should defer to prior rulings and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety.
Defendant provides the following authority in support of the above assertions:
- Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to … judicial Proceedings of every other State (U.S. Constitution. Article IV, Section 1).
- “The decision to grant or deny a preliminary injunction ‘is within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be disturbed absent a clear abuse of discretion.’” Wall v. Ferrero, 142 Fed.Appx. 405 (11th Cir. 2005). (Emphasis added.)
- Stare decisis. Latin for “to stand by things decided.” Stare decisis is essentially the doctrine of precedent. Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. Generally, courts will adhere to the previous ruling, though this is not universally true. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 US 833 (1992).
- Res judicata. Literally, a “matter adjudged”, res judicata is the principle that a matter may not, generally, be re-litigated once it has been adjudged on the merits.
Res judicata encompasses limits on both the claims and the issues that may be raised in subsequent proceedings:
- Claim preclusion is the principle that once a cause of action has been litigated, it may not be re-litigated.
- Bar: A losing plaintiff is barred from re-suing a winning defendant on the same cause of action.
- Issue preclusion (Collateral estoppel): Once an issue of fact has been determined in a proceeding between two parties, the parties may not relitigate that issue even in a proceeding on a different cause of action.
See http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Category:Definition
In the instant case, the California Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s holding that Plaintiff, BINA48, did not have “standing” to bring a cause of action. Plaintiff’s Motion, presented before this court today is, in essence, the same motion (with the same issues, facts, and parties) as the one filed and litigated before the California courts in 2003.
The fact that Plaintiff now asserts additional claims (respectively, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments) does not alter the outcome of the above rationale. The issues and parties presently before the Court are the same issues/parties that appeared before the California courts in 2003 and 2005. Accordingly, Plaintiff is barred from re-litigating these same issues today.
Because Plaintiff cannot prove clear abuse of discretion by the California courts - because the Constitution demands that full, faith and credit be attributed to judicial proceeding of other states - and because the principles of stare decisis and res judicata apply, this honorable Court should deny Plaintiff’s Motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety.
Footnotes
1. Standing - A person’s right to bring (start) or join a lawsuit because he or she is directly affected by the issues raised. Oran, Daniel. Law Dictionary for Nonlawyers Fourth Edition. New York: Delmar, 2000. (back to top)
<previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 next page>
Back to Issue Contents
|
The
Terasem Pledge
We
pledge allegiance to the flag of the collective consciousness of Terasem,
and to the principles for which it stands, education, persistently,
with diversity, unity, and joyful immortality everywhere.
|
