Kalos v. Greenwich Insurance Company , 404 F. App'x 792 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-1959
    PETER KALOS; VERON LEE KALOS,
    Plaintiffs – Appellants,
    v.
    GREENWICH INSURANCE COMPANY; WISENBAKER HOLDINGS, LLC,
    Defendants – Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (1:10-cv-00841-JCC-TRJ)
    Submitted:     November 22, 2010            Decided:   December 14, 2010
    Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Peter and Veron Lee Kalos, Appellants Pro Se.     Shannon Jacob
    Posner, LAW OFFICES OF SHANNON J. POSNER, PA, Sparks, Maryland,
    for Appellee Greenwich Insurance Company.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    In July 2010, Peter and Veron Lee Kalos filed this
    action   against      Greenwich      Insurance        Company    (“Greenwich”)     and
    Wisenbaker      Holdings,       LLC,      (“Wisenbaker”)        seeking      emergency
    injunctive relief, a declaratory judgment, and “other equitable
    relief relating to a cloud on title to real property.”                             The
    Kaloses simultaneously filed a motion for emergency injunctive
    relief echoing the claims in their complaint and asking the
    district court to “forestall a sale or further clouding of trust
    property.”
    The    district    court     held   a    hearing    on   the   Kaloses’
    emergency motion for injunctive relief.                    At the conclusion of
    the hearing, the district court denied the motion, explaining
    that given the numerous rulings against them, the Kaloses could
    not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.                             The
    district      court    also     dismissed      the     Kaloses’     complaint      with
    prejudice because the claims had previously been adjudicated by
    other courts.        We affirm.
    The     doctrine       of    collateral       estoppel         precludes
    relitigation of issues that are identical to issues actually
    determined and necessarily decided in prior litigation in which
    the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted had a
    full and fair opportunity to litigate.                     McHan v. Comm’r, 
    558 F.3d 326
    ,    331    (4th    Cir.   2009).       Res    judicata      precludes   the
    2
    assertion of a claim that has already been “litigated to a final
    judgment by that party or such party’s privies and precludes the
    assertion by such parties of any legal theory, cause of action,
    or defense which could have been asserted in that action.”                         Ohio
    Valley Envtl. Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co., 
    556 F.3d 177
    , 210
    (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting 18 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s
    Federal Practice § 131.10(1)(a) (3d ed. 2008)).                      Application of
    these doctrines constitutes a legal question that we review de
    novo.       See Sartin v. Macik, 
    535 F.3d 284
    , 292 (4th Cir. 2008); Q
    Int’l Courier Inc. v. Smoak, 
    441 F.3d 214
    , 216 (4th Cir. 2006).
    Here, the record reveals that the Kaloses have filed
    numerous      actions      against    Greenwich       and    Wisenbaker       in   state
    courts, all related to the foreclosure of the property at issue
    in    the    instant    case.        These       claims   have    been   conclusively
    adjudicated and may not be relitigated.
    Turning      to   the     Kaloses’          request    for      emergency
    injunctive relief, we agree with the district court that they
    did   not     make   the   requisite     showing.           In   order   to   obtain   a
    preliminary injunction, a plaintiff must establish “[1] that he
    is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that he is likely to
    suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,
    [3] that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that
    an injunction is in the public interest.”                         Winter v. Natural
    Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. ___, 
    129 S. Ct. 365
    , 374
    3
    (2008); Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm’n,
    
    575 F.3d 342
    , 346 (4th Cir. 2009).              The district court concluded
    that the Kaloses were not entitled to injunctive relief because
    they   could    not    demonstrate   a       likelihood    of   success    on   the
    merits.   In light of the numerous adverse state court judgments
    and their preclusive effects, we agree with this determination.
    Nothing in the other factors causes us to reach a different
    result.
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
    We   dispense   with    oral   argument       because     the   facts   and   legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    4
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-1959

Citation Numbers: 404 F. App'x 792

Judges: Gregory, Shedd, Agee

Filed Date: 12/14/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024