Opinion
Civil Action No: 02-1185, Section: "R"(1)
December 2, 2002
ORDER AND REASONS
Before the Court is defendant's motion for a permanent injunction enjoining plaintiff from bringing future litigation in any jurisdiction arising out of the facts at issue in this lawsuit. For the following reasons, the Court denies defendant's motion.
I. Background
The Court held a three-day trial on plaintiff's claims that defendant breached a contract by delivering sorghum with zearlenone, a mycotoxin, in excess of the contractual limit. In an Order and Reasons dated November 1, 2002, the Court found in favor of the defendant and dismissed plaintiff's claims. On the very same day, defendant filed a Motion for Issuance of A Permanent Injunction. In the motion, defendant requests that the Court issue a permanent injunction enjoining plaintiff from instituting or maintaining any additional lawsuits in another jurisdiction, including foreign jurisdictions, that pertain to the shipments of sorghum at issue in this lawsuit. Defendant's motion followed plaintiff's threat that it may relitigate these issues in Mexico if it is unsuccessful in this lawsuit.
II. Discussion
Under the All Writs Act, "[t]he Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law." 28 U.S.C. § 1651 (a) (2002). The Act empowers district courts to enjoin persons subject to their jurisdiction from prosecuting foreign suits. Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corporation, 76 F.3d 624, 626 (5th Cir. 1996). Such an injunction may be warranted if it is necessary to prevent vexatious or oppressive litigation. Id. at 627. Principles of international comity are relevant but do not control the determination. Id. Thus, in Kaepa, the district court did not err in enjoining a parallel lawsuit filed by the defendant in Japan in a "belated ploy" that was intended by the defendant to harass and delay. Id. at 628.
The Act permits district courts to enjoin not only pending lawsuits but also, in limited circumstances, future lawsuits. The Fifth Circuit recently reaffirmed this principle in Newby v. Enron Corp., 302 F.3d 295, 301-03 (5th Cir. 2002), upholding a district court's decision to enjoin the plaintiff's counsel from filing future state court actions because their actions "constitute a sufficiently serious and systematic abuse of the courts." See also Villar v. Crowley Maritime Corporation, 990 F.2d 1489, 1499 (5th Cir. 1993) (stating that "federal courts have the power to enjoin plaintiff who abuse the court system and harass their opponents"). In Newby, the plaintiff's counsel circumvented the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards of Act of 1998, which made the federal courts the exclusive venue for class actions alleging securities fraud, by filing multiple lawsuits in various state courts, each with fewer than 50 plaintiffs. Newby, 302 F.3d at 298. Importantly, plaintiff's counsel did not attempt to provide the defendants with advance notice before seeking temporary restraining orders in the state court suits, despite the defendants' attempts to communicate with them. Id. at 302-03. In Harrelson v. United States, 613 F.2d 114, 116 (5th Cir. 1980), the Fifth Circuit upheld a district court's decision to enjoin any future litigation on any cause of action arising from the fact situation at issue in the case because the plaintiff was "abusing the court system by harassing their opponents." In that case, the plaintiff "forced various defendants in and out of court for almost five years and [had] a full opportunity to present and litigate his claims." Id.
Here, the Court does not find that plaintiff's behavior warrants the extraordinary remedy that defendant requests. Plaintiff has thus far filed a single lawsuit against defendant, which plaintiff lost. In the course of this lawsuit, plaintiff threatened, but did not file, a related lawsuit in Mexico. This single threat does not amount to harassment. Defendant's motion is premature and therefore this Court will not issue an order enjoining future litigation arising from the facts at issue in this lawsuit. As the Fifth Circuit noted in Harrelson, "[s]uch orders are generally unnecessary, as res judicata and collateral estoppel are usually more than adequate to protect defendants against repetitious litigation." Harrelson, 613 F.2d at 116; see also Kinnear-Weed Corporation v. Humble Oil Refining Company, 441 F.2d 631, 637 (5th Cir. 1971) (holding that an injunction barring future litigation "does no more than embody the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel") Accordingly, defendant's motion is denied.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies defendant's motion.