The following excerpt is from Rousset v. Atmel Corp., No. 16-2566-cv (2nd Cir. 2017):
The district court did not err in concluding that it was foreclosed from considering the Rule 60(b) motion because, although there was no remand order here, this court's mandate clearly encompassed the arguments made in the Rule 60(b) motion before the district court.2 The court heard extensive argument about the ongoing proceedings in France, took judicial notice of the records of those proceedings, and ultimately concluded that "the defendants expressly consented to jurisdiction" in France. Guerrini v. Atmel Corp., 667 F. App'x at 310. If the court had viewed the evidence before it as
Page 7
undercutting defendants' professed consent to jurisdiction in France, it would not have so ruled.
Even if this court's consent conclusion did not, by itself, capture the entirety of plaintiffs' arguments, the relevant summary order did so in stating that the court "f[ound] no merit in the plaintiffs' other arguments." Id. Because the issue of defendants' conduct in the French courts was raised and fully argued, such languageeven without overt reference to a particular argument or explanation of the reasons it lacked meritsignifies an adjudication on the merits. See Francolino v. Kuhlman, 365 F.3d 137, 141 (2d Cir. 2004) (observing "that a claim was adjudicated on the merits where it was one of the remaining contentions that the [reviewing court] stated were without merit" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.