United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
March 27, 2007
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-20770
Summary Calendar
_____________________
DUFFY & McGOVERN ACCOMMODATION SERVICES,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
QCI MARINE OFFSHORE, LLC,
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
USDC No. 4:05-CV-2360
_________________________________________________________________
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
QCI Marine Offshore, LLC (“QCI”) appeals the district court’s
order applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel to enjoin QCI’s
state court lawsuit against Duffy & McGovern Accommodation Services
(“DMAS”). Finding that the district court did not abuse its
discretion, we affirm.
This case is before us for a second time. The facts and
procedural history are set forth in our previous opinion. Duffy &
McGovern Accommodation Services v. QCI Marine Offshore, Inc., 448
F.3d 825 (5th Cir. 2006). In the first appeal, we considered whether
the district court’s order upholding the validity of the forum
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the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.
selection clause and dismissing the breach of contract action
precluded QCI from pursuing the same claims against DMAS in state
court. We concluded that the requirements for collateral estoppel
were met as a matter of law, and remanded to the district court for
the discretionary determination whether the doctrine could fairly be
applied in this case. QCI, 448 F.3d at 831. On remand, the district
court concluded that there was no bar to the application of
collateral estoppel and enjoined the parties from proceeding in state
court.
On appeal, QCI argues that fairness considerations preclude the
application of collateral estoppel in this case. QCI maintains that
DMAS manipulated the judicial system and wasted judicial resources by
seeking relief in federal court after attempting to defend its case
unsuccessfully in state court. The record makes clear, however, that
this course of action was forced by QCI’s attempt to undercut an
adverse ruling by the federal court by initiating a second state
court lawsuit, rather than pursuing its federal appeal. We find no
abuse of discretion.**
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
**
QCI also argues that this court erred in its determination
that the Texas state court’s decision denying DMAS collateral
estoppel barred the federal courts from considering this argument.
“Absent an intervening Supreme Court or en banc decision or a change
in the statutory law, we are bound to follow the prior panel’s
decision.” United States v. Anderson, 853 F.2d 313, 320 (5th Cir.
1988). This argument is therefore foreclosed.
2