Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
11-16-2007
Cemex Inc v. Ind Contr Erecting
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-3515
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Cemex Inc v. Ind Contr Erecting" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 210.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/210
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
Nos. 06-3515
CEMEX INC.,
Appellant
v.
INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTING
AND ERECTING, INC.,
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff
v.
MINSERCO, INC.,
Third-Party Defendant
No. 06-3587
CEMEX, INC.
v.
INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTING
AND ERECTING, INC.,
Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff
v.
MINSERCO, INC.,
Third-Party Defendant
Industrial Contracting and Erecting, Inc.,
Appellant
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 02-cv-01240)
District Judge: Honorable Terrence F. McVerry
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
October 30, 2007
Before: RENDELL and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges,
and VANASKIE*, District Judge.
(Filed November 16, 2007)
OPINION OF THE COURT
RENDELL, Circuit Judge.
Cemex, Inc. (Cemex) appeals from an order entered by the District Court granting
defendant Industrial Contracting and Erecting, Inc.’s (ICE) motion for summary
judgment. Cemex raises two arguments on appeal. First, Cemex asserts that the District
Court erred in holding that Cemex is collaterally estopped from pursuing its property
damage claims against ICE as a result the jury’s findings in Carcaise v. Cemex, Inc. v.
ICE, No. CA 01-00859 (W.D. Pa. May 16, 2005). Second, Cemex argues that the
District Court erred in concluding that the doctrine of res judicata served to bar Cemex’s
claims against ICE. ICE cross-appeals, requesting that should we reverse the grant of
*Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie, Judge of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
2
summary judgment in its favor, we reverse an order entered by the District Court
granting third-party defendant Minserco Inc.’s motion for summary judgment.
We agree with the District Court that the issues raised here were essentially
decided in Carcaise. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the District Court’s well-
reasoned opinion, we will affirm the District Court’s orders granting ICE’s motion for
summary judgment and Minserco Inc.’s motion for summary judgment.
3