United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
August 23, 2006
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 05-30993
Summary Calendar
BROOKSHIRE BROTHERS HOLDING, INC.; ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
versus
TOTAL CONTAINMENT, INC.; ET AL.,
Defendants,
DAYCO PRODUCTS, LLC; MARK IV INDUSTRIES, LTD.,
Defendants-Appellants
versus
PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP.,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas
(USDC No. 2:04-CV-1150)
_________________________________________________________
Before REAVLEY, GARZA and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
1
PER CURIAM:*
Dayco Products, LLC appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of Parker-Hannifin Corp. We affirm.
Parker Hannifin argues that Dayco is collaterally estopped from arguing that
Parker-Hannifin is liable for indemnification regarding the Enviroflex hose claims under
the Asset Purchase Agreement. We agree.
This court has held that collateral estoppel applies when, in the initial litigation,
(1)
the issue at stake in the pending litigation is the same, (2) the issue was actually litigated,
and (3) the determination of the issue in the initial litigation was a necessary part of the
judgment. Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 272, 290 (5th Cir. 2005). In Parker-
Hannifin Corp. v. Dayco Products, LLC, No. 05-3518 (6th Cir. Feb. 24, 2006), the Sixth
Circuit affirmed a decision from the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio finding that the identical Asset Purchase Agreement did not require Parker-
Hannifin to indemnify Dayco for claims concerning Enviroflex hoses. All of the
collateral estoppel elements have been met here. Dayco argues that the Sixth Circuit did
not address the following issues: (1) the effect of the “TCI Litigation” clause in the Asset
Purchase Agreement, and (2) the ambiguity created by the Asset Purchase Agreement’s
*
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not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in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.
2
use of the word “occurrences.” The United States District Court for the Northern District
of Ohio considered these issues and found in favor of Parker-Hannifin. Parker-Hannifin
Corp. v. Dayco Prods., LLC, No. 1:04-CV-897 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 29, 2005). The Sixth
Circuit affirmed. Parker-Hannifin Corp. v. Dayco Prods., LLC, No. 05-3518 (6th Cir.
Feb. 24, 2006). Accordingly, Dayco has not raised issues that were not litigated
previously.
In addition, all elements for application of res judicata have been satisfied. The
prior decision was between the same parties, judgment was rendered by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the judgment was final and on the merits, and the plaintiff raises
the same cause of action. Russell v. SunAmerica Secs., Inc., 962 F.2d 1169, 1172 (5th
Cir. 1992).
AFFIRMED.
3