Opinions of the United 2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-16-2007 Cemex Inc v. Ind Contr Erecting Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-3515 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007 Recommended Citation "Cemex Inc v. Ind Contr Erecting" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 210. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/210 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.  NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT Nos. 06-3515 CEMEX INC., Appellant v. INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTING AND ERECTING, INC., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff v. MINSERCO, INC., Third-Party Defendant No. 06-3587 CEMEX, INC. v. INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTING AND ERECTING, INC., Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff v. MINSERCO, INC., Third-Party Defendant Industrial Contracting and Erecting, Inc., Appellant  Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. Civil No. 02-cv-01240) District Judge: Honorable Terrence F. McVerry Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) October 30, 2007 Before: RENDELL and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges, and VANASKIE*, District Judge. (Filed November 16, 2007) OPINION OF THE COURT RENDELL, Circuit Judge. Cemex, Inc. (Cemex) appeals from an order entered by the District Court granting defendant Industrial Contracting and Erecting, Inc.’s (ICE) motion for summary judgment. Cemex raises two arguments on appeal. First, Cemex asserts that the District Court erred in holding that Cemex is collaterally estopped from pursuing its property damage claims against ICE as a result the jury’s findings in Carcaise v. Cemex, Inc. v. ICE, No. CA 01-00859 (W.D. Pa. May 16, 2005). Second, Cemex argues that the District Court erred in concluding that the doctrine of res judicata served to bar Cemex’s claims against ICE. ICE cross-appeals, requesting that should we reverse the grant of *Honorable Thomas I. Vanaskie, Judge of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation. 2 summary judgment in its favor, we reverse an order entered by the District Court granting third-party defendant Minserco Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. We agree with the District Court that the issues raised here were essentially decided in Carcaise. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the District Court’s well- reasoned opinion, we will affirm the District Court’s orders granting ICE’s motion for summary judgment and Minserco Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. 3