Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Melford BERNS, Appellant, v. Bruce O’DELL, Gary Shaw, Tom Woolsey and David Griese, Appellees

Melford BERNS, Appellant, v. Bruce O’DELL, Gary Shaw, Tom Woolsey & David Griese, Appellees, 726 F.2d 409 (8th Cir. 1984)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1984-02-01
Topic: litigation

How later courts describe this case

holding collateral estoppel barred litigation under RICO where the predicate fraud issue had been decided as a counterclaim in an earlier action

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Melford BERNS, Appellant, v. Bruce O’DELL, Gary Shaw, Tom Woolsey and David Griese, Appellees. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 5 opinions

BERNS v. O'DELL,726 F.2d 409(8th Cir. 1984)

MELFORD BERNS, APPELLANT, v. BRUCE O'DELL, GARY SHAW, TOM WOOLSEY AND DAVID

GRIESE, APPELLEES.

No. 83-1750.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted January 13, 1984.

Decided February 1, 1984.

Irl B. Baris, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Charles Alan Seigel, Jane E. Leonard, Stolar, Heitzmann, Eder, Seigel Harris, St. Louis, Mo., for appellee Bruce O'Dell.

John C. Garavaglia, Jerome F. Raskas, Raskas, Ruthmeyer, Pomerantz Wynne, St. Louis, Mo., for appellees Gary Shaw, Tom Woolsey and David Griese.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Before BRIGHT, McMILLIAN and ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

[1] Melford Berns appeals from a final order entered in the District Court¹for the Eastern District of Missouri granting summary judgment in favor of Bruce O'Dell, Gary Shaw, Tom Woolsey, and David Griese. The district court held that a prior adverse judgment,see E.F. Hutton Co. v. Berns,682 F.2d 173(8th Cir. 1982), collaterally estopped appellant from proceeding with the present suit.Berns v. O'Dell,563 F. Supp. 1201(E.D.Mo. 1983). For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

[2] In the present suit appellant seeks treble damages and attorney's fees from appellees, who were all employees of E.F. Hutton Co. at the time of the initial stock transactions, for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961-1964, alleging securities fraud committed by use of wire and mail facilities in interstate commerce constituted a pattern of racketeering activity. The district court found that the present suit involved the same transactions and the same issue of fraud that had formed the basis of appellant's securities fraud counterclaim in the earlier action. The district court stated:

[T]he issue litigated and determined in the prior suit adversely to [appellant here] was whether Hutton, through [appellees] O'Dell and Shaw, had made the allegedly false and fraudulent representations in reliance on which Berns purchased.Page 410Victoria Station stock. An affirmative finding on this issue is an essential element of any recovery by [appellant] in the present action instituted under . . . [RICO]. . . . That the claim could not be actionable under RICO absent proof of additional facts such as the use of the mails or wire facilities in furtherance of the alleged scheme to defraud [appellant] is irrelevant.

[3] At 1203. The district court then concluded that appellant was barred by collateral estoppel from further litigating the issue of fraudulent representations in connection with the Victoria Station stock transactions.

[4] We have carefully reviewed appellant's allegations of error and find them without merit. We agree with the district court's collateral estoppel analysis and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the district court. 8th Cir.R. 14.

The Honorable John K. Regan, United States Senior District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. ↩