Nonparty Preclusion post Taylor v. Sturgell


The following is from the July 22, 2008 hearing transcript before Magistrate Elizabeth D. Laporte on Sun's motion for fees. The exchange was about the recent Supreme Court decision in Taylor v. Sturgell (June 12, 2008).

Mr. Yue argued Pro Se.
Jedediah Wakefield for Sun Microsystems
Before Elizabeth D. Laporte

From pages 4-6 of the TRANSCRIPT:


MR. YUE: The procedure is for the plaintiff to move for 60(b) motion in the District Court. If the judge indicated he would grant the motion, then, I would go to the Ninth Circuit and seek a remand. So at this point --

THE COURT: Right.

MR. YUE: You know --

THE COURT: I mean, all of that would be very unusual, but it's still a possibility. Now, let me ask, on -- the Supreme Court recently ruled on an issue having to do with nonparty preclusion in the Taylor versus Sturgell case; did that in any way affect the basis for Judge Jenkins's ruling, basically, that there was preclusion against the plaintiff? I know he had two bases, one of which was privity, and I'm not sure that that was affected at all. Possibly the intertwining basis was affected.

MR. WAKEFIELD: I'll have to confess that I haven't studied the Sturgell decision,...

...

THE COURT: Um-hmm.

MR. YUE: Your Honor, I think the Taylor versus Sturgell case did disapprove the legal grounds for precluding me from this litigation. I was a nonparty to the -- Netbula versus Sun. And, the whole ground by Judge Jenkins was the theory of virtual representation. And, in my papers, I argue that I could not be virtually represented by Netbula because I was already precluded --

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. YUE: -- from that case.

THE COURT: All right. Again, it's going to be up to -- I just raised that question briefly, but that's really an issue right now that's not before me, it's before either the Ninth Circuit or unless the 60(b) motion is granted.


 
Online Discussion
 

Equal Justice » Commentary » Nonparty Preclusion post Taylor v. Sturgell
 
Online Discussion
 

Login