UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-21177
Summary Calendar
ANTHONY DUKE, SR., CAROLYN DUKE, AND MONTE DUKE,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
VERSUS
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COM., JOHN DILLON, IP FARMS, INC., IPF, INC.,
FARMS OF TEXAS CO., EAGLE GEOPHYSICAL, GLYN KING, AND TRAVIS REESE,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
(H-00-CV-4105)
July 24, 2002
Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
*
PER CURIAM:
The Appellants herein have litigated this case twice in
federal district court, predicated on the Appellees’ refusal to
renew an annual land lease. In the first instance, the court and
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under
the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1
a jury found their claim that the Appellees improperly denied the
renewal of an annual farming lease without merit. The jury found
for the Appellees, assessing $157,952.08 in attorney’s fees and
costs on their behalf. The Appellants then filed a “Plaintiffs’
Original Petition and Plaintiffs’ Suit to Set-Aside Judgment,” in
a new action before a different court. Interpreting the new
petition to be a motion to set aside the original lawsuit judgment
pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3), that court transferred the
case back to the original district court in the Southern District
of Texas. Following the appropriate pleadings and motions, that
court denied the Appellants a default judgment and granted summary
judgment to the Appellee companies by claim preclusion, on the
basis that the Appellants had previously litigated the same claims
between the same parties. In this appeal, the Appellants seek to
overturn that judgment, citing 16 issues challenging the district
court’s application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
appropriateness of the inter-court transfer, and for the first time
on appeal, the impartiality of the district judge for her erstwhile
association with opposing counsel.
Having considered the Appellant’s claims, the briefs by
counsel, and the record, the ruling of the district court is hereby
AFFIRMED.
2