Filed: Oct. 17, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 11-11854 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Non-Argument Calendar OCTOBER 17, 2011 _ JOHN LEY CLERK D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-22409-AJ THE WEITZ COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus TREMCO INCORPORATED OF OHIO, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (October 17, 2011) Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The s
Summary: [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 11-11854 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Non-Argument Calendar OCTOBER 17, 2011 _ JOHN LEY CLERK D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-22409-AJ THE WEITZ COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus TREMCO INCORPORATED OF OHIO, Defendant-Appellee. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida _ (October 17, 2011) Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The so..
More
[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 11-11854 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Non-Argument Calendar OCTOBER 17, 2011 ________________________ JOHN LEY CLERK D.C. Docket No. 1:10-cv-22409-AJ THE WEITZ COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus TREMCO INCORPORATED OF OHIO, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (October 17, 2011) Before TJOFLAT, WILSON and FAY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The sole issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred in dismissing under the doctrine of res adjudicata Weitz’s claim that “Tremco’s negligent advice regarding the sufficiency of the subcontractor’s installation of Tremco’s product caused Weitz millions of dollars in damages because it had to replace the materials constructed over the improperly installed waterproofing material.” Appellant’s Br. at 1. For the reasons the district court stated in its dispositive order of March 28, 2011, we agree that the doctrine barred Weitz’s claim. AFFIRMED. 2
