Marrese v. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons - 726 F.2d 1150 (7th Cir. 1984)

Rule:

As the main purpose of the doctrine of res judicata is to protect a defendant from being worn down by a plaintiff who sues him over and over again for the same allegedly wrongful conduct, a plaintiff may not sue the defendant on one theory and having lost try again on a different one.

Facts:

In 1976 the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, a private association, rejected Dr. Treister’s and Dr. Marrese’s applications for membership, without a hearing or a statement of reasons. The doctors sued the Academy in an Illinois state court, claiming among other things that the common law of Illinois and the Illinois constitution required the Academy to grant a hearing on their applications and to use reasonable standards in deciding whether to accept the applications. The doctors made no claim under Illinois antitrust law; nor did they, at that time, bring a federal antitrust suit. The Illinois Appellate Court ordered Dr. Treister's complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim. They brought suit in federal court pursuant to the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 1 et seq. the Academy sought dismissal, claiming res judicata. The motion was denied and pretrial discovery began. The doctors asked the Academy to produce certain files. The Academy refused, prompting the district court to issue an order to produce, which again was refused. The Academy was held in criminal contempt.

Issue:

Did res judicata apply to the doctors’ federal action?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court held that the doctors’ failure to join to their state claims with the Illinois Antitrust Act barred their action in federal court; because res judicata applied, a finding of contempt for a discovery violation on a suit that should not have been pending exceeded the district court's authority.