· 2/27/2001

Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

Citations

531 U.S. 497
121 S. Ct. 1021
149 L. Ed. 2d 32
2001 U.S. LEXIS 1951
2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1569
69 U.S.L.W. 4147
2001 Colo. J. C.A.R. 1046
14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 109

About this case

Jump to content

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2001 United States Supreme Court case

English Wikisource has original text related to this article:

**Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. **

Semtek v. Lockheed Martin, 531 U.S. 497 (2001), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that federal common law governs the preclusive effect of a judgment entered in a federal court sitting in diversity.

Background

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semtek_International_Inc._v._Lockheed_Martin_Corp.&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Background")
]

Petitioners Semtek International Incorporated filed a complaint against Lockheed Martin in California state court, alleging a breach of contract.[1] The case was removed to the local federal district court due to the diversity of citizenship in the case. The trial judge then dismissed the complaint, writing that California's 2-year statute of limitations made the claim "barred".[2]

Semtek International had also filed a claim in Maryland's state court. The court here also dismissed the complaint, but on the grounds that "the res judicata effect" precludes this separate claim in a different state. Since another federal court had dismissed a similar action already, Semtek could not proceed in a different court on virtually similar contentions.

Opinion of the Court

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semtek_International_Inc._v._Lockheed_Martin_Corp.&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Opinion of the Court")
]

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court, reversing the decision of the Maryland courts. Scalia wrote that there was no final "judgment on the merits" in the California case and thus the Maryland trial was not precluded.[3] A reading of the appropriate rule could be seen as still permitting other actions. Therefore, Semtek was entitled to a trial before the Maryland courts and the case was remanded with such instructions.

References

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semtek_International_Inc._v._Lockheed_Martin_Corp.&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: References")
]

↑ 531 U.S. at 499.
↑ 531 U.S. at 500.
↑ 531 U.S. at 507.

External links

[(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semtek_International_Inc._v._Lockheed_Martin_Corp.&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: External links")
]

Text of Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (2001) is available from: Cornell Findlaw Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Semtek_International_Inc._v._Lockheed_Martin_Corp.&oldid=1351929905 "

Categories :

Hidden categories:

Semtek International Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

Add languages Add topic

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that a California statute of limitations is procedural and not substantive law
noting that the original definition of an “on the merits” adjudication is “one that actually ‘pass[es] directly on the substance of [a particular] claim before the court’ ”
cautioning against the assumption that “all judgments denominated ‘on the merits’ are entitled to claim-preclusive effect”
avoiding an interpretation of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 41(b) that \would arguably violate the jurisdictional limitation of the Rules Enabling Act\
“[F]ederal common law governs the claim-preclusive effect of a dismissal by a federal court sitting in diversity.”
claim preclusion in judgment in federal diversity action not governed by full faith and credit clause or any other provision of Constitution, but by federal common law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Scalia, Scaua

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.