Filed: May 02, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: Case: 18-10596 Document: 00514940300 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-10596 May 2, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ASSOCIATED RECOVERY L.L.C., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. JOHN DOES 1- 44; 744.COM; 028.COM; 3DCAMERA.COM; FNY.COM; ET AL, Defendants–Appellees; - ASSOCIATED RECOVERY L.L.C., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. JOHN DOES 1- 44; 744.COM; 028.COM; 3DCAMERA.COM; FNY.COM; VERISIGN
Summary: Case: 18-10596 Document: 00514940300 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2019 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED No. 18-10596 May 2, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk ASSOCIATED RECOVERY L.L.C., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. JOHN DOES 1- 44; 744.COM; 028.COM; 3DCAMERA.COM; FNY.COM; ET AL, Defendants–Appellees; - ASSOCIATED RECOVERY L.L.C., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. JOHN DOES 1- 44; 744.COM; 028.COM; 3DCAMERA.COM; FNY.COM; VERISIGN ..
More
Case: 18-10596 Document: 00514940300 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/02/2019
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 18-10596 May 2, 2019
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
ASSOCIATED RECOVERY L.L.C.,
Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
JOHN DOES 1- 44; 744.COM; 028.COM; 3DCAMERA.COM; FNY.COM; ET
AL,
Defendants–Appellees;
-------------------------------
ASSOCIATED RECOVERY L.L.C.,
Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
JOHN DOES 1- 44; 744.COM; 028.COM; 3DCAMERA.COM; FNY.COM;
VERISIGN INCORPORATED; ET AL,
Defendants–Appellees;
-------------------------------
ASSOCIATED RECOVERY L.L.C.,
Plaintiff–Appellant,
v.
LINDA BUTCHER; CBRE GROUP INCORPORATED; VIVIAN
ROSENTHAL; WILLIAM WOLFSON; PRIVECO INCORPORATED; STEVE
PARMA; SOL PERLSTEIN; RADICAL INVESTMENTS MANAGEMENT
L.L.C.; TUMULT INCORPORATED; DGB PARTNER INCORPORATED;
TOBYCLEMENTS.COM L.L.C.; TRUE MAGIC L.L.C.; JANNO L.L.C.;
POWER HOME TECHNOLOGIES L.L.C.; LOOKOUT INCORPORATED;
Case: 18-10596 Document: 00514940300 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/02/2019
No. 18-10596
SLICE TECHNOLOGY INCORPORATED, formerly known as Project Slice
Incorporated; STEVE FORTUNA; MOINC-US; TELEPATHY
INCORPORATED; ONIG L.L.C.; NEWS LIMITED; WORLDWIDE
RETAILING L.L..C.; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY; ALL-PRO FASTENERS INCORPORATED; BUYERS
INTERNATIONAL GROUP L.L.C.; CREATION MEDIA L.L.C.;
DHARSHINEE NAIDU; KATE SPADE; ALANSIS CORPORATION;
FANTASY SPIN GAME L.L.C.; GOLDRUN INCORPORATED;
ALANSIS.COM INCORPORATED,
Defendants–Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:16-CV-1025
USDC No. 3:17-CV-424
USDC No. 3:17-CV-651
Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This collateral-estoppel question originates from a business-partnership
dispute. Jeffrey Baron and Munish Krishan started an internet-domain-name
company. Netsphere, Inc. v. Baron, 703 F.3d 296, 301 (5th Cir. 2012). But their
partnership soured. Krishan’s independent company Netsphere sued Baron.
The district court appointed a receiver over Baron’s personal property as well
as for his corporation Novo Point. And the court authorized sales of domain
names to pay for fees.
Id. at 301–05. Baron appealed the receivership, and this
court obliged, reversing the appointment of a receiver.
Id. at 314.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
2
Case: 18-10596 Document: 00514940300 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/02/2019
No. 18-10596
Fast forward a few years, and Novo Point assigned some of its interests
to Associated Recovery—a new corporation that Baron also has an interest in.
Associated Recovery sued the domain-name buyers, asserting ownership of the
domain names from Netsphere. The argument: that the sales are void. But the
district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that
Associated Recovery’s claim is barred by collateral estoppel. Thus this appeal.
We review an order granting a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
motion to dismiss de novo. New Orleans City v. AMBAC Assurance Corp., 815
F.3d 196, 199 (5th Cir. 2016). And we accept all well-pleaded facts as true,
considering them in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.
Id. at 199–200.
In Netsphere, although this court reversed the receivership, we did not
reverse the sales of domain names. Instead, we ordered “[n]o further sales of
domain
names.” 703 F.3d at 314 (emphasis added). We left the completed sales
intact. Even though Associated Recovery wasn’t a party to Netsphere, our
ruling still binds the corporation because of its close relationship to Baron and
Novo Point. See Sw. Airlines Co. v. Tex. Int’l Airlines, Inc.,
546 F.2d 84, 94–95
(5th Cir. 1977).
Not only does Netsphere bind Associated Recovery, it also collaterally
estops the corporation. See White v. World Fin. of Meridian, Inc., 653 F.2d 147,
151 (5th Cir. Unit A Aug. 1981). This case raises the same issue as in
Netsphere: the reversal of domain-name sales. And that issue was fully
litigated; in fact, resolved. This issue was at the very heart of Baron’s request
for relief.
Associated Review thus may not relitigate this decided issue. The district
court was correct to dismiss the suit. We AFFIRM.
3
