Legal Opinion

Pourzal v. Kroll-O'Gara Co.

District Court, Virgin Islands

Decided June 7, 2005No. Civ. No. 2001-141PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM

(June 7, 2005)

Before the Court is the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment.1 The sole issue presented in the defendants’ motion is whether the plaintiff is collaterally estopped from asserting all but one of the claims in his complaint because the issues surrounding those claims were raised and decided in a prior arbitration proceeding. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the defendants’ motion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

A. The Parties and The Complaint

Plaintiff Nick Pourzal initiated this action [the “court proceeding”] against (1)…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Montana v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. 71 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 801, 69 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,370 Judith S. Dici v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania State Police Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement Frank H. Monaco Steven B. BrisonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1996
  3. Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
  4. Witkowski v. WelchCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
  5. Hawksbill Sea Turtle v. Federal Emergency Management AgencyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Hartzog ex rel. Perez v. United Corp.Superior Court of The Virgin Islands · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API