[NOT FOR PUBLICATION – NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 99-1716
ERIC A. FORETICH,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
THE LANDSBURG COMPANY, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
and Boudin and Lipez, Circuit Judges.
Elaine Mittleman on brief for appellant.
Paul R. Taskier, Adam Proujansky, Dickstein Shapiro
Morin & Oshinsky LLP, William L. Chapman, and Orr and Reno on
brief for appellees.
March 1, 2001
Per Curiam. In 1992, the defendants in this action produced
and broadcast a docudrama depicting the bitter child custody dispute
between Dr. Eric A. Foretich and his former wife. Foretich responded
to this broadcast by filing multiple suits against these defendants.
In addition to the present action filed in federal district court in
New Hampshire, Foretich also filed two suits, one in Virginia and one
in the District of Columbia, that were removed and consolidated in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia. After a
series of setbacks in that forum, during which the New Hampshire action
was stayed, Foretich agreed to a comprehensive settlement that resolved
the remaining issues in the D.C. action and that also required him to
dismiss the New Hampshire action. Shortly after reaching this
agreement, however, Foretich refused to abide by it and contested its
enforceability in the D.C. District Court. Both the D.C. District and
Circuit Courts held that the agreement was enforceable. In response,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss in New Hampshire seeking to
hold Foretich to his bargain. The New Hampshire District Court granted
the motion on the ground that res judicata prevented Foretich from
contesting the validity of the agreement. Foretich now appeals.
Foretich agreed to dismiss the New Hampshire case as part of
a broad settlement agreement to resolve overlapping litigation in the
district court. The D.C. District Court and Court of Appeals later
upheld the agreement so far as pertinent here despite Foretich's
-2-
attempt to back out of it. His objections to the settlement were or
could have been litigated in the D.C. courts. We see no basis for
allowing him to relitigate those objections here.
We deny the request for sanctions. In accordance with Fed.
R. App. P. 39, however, costs are taxed against Foretich.
Affirmed.
-3-