Volume 1, Issue 3
3rd Quarter, 2006

BINA48 VS. EXABIT CORPORATION (Fla. MD 2005): Defendant's Brief

page 2 of 8


  1. Should Plaintiff’s Motion be denied because the same claims/issues have been heard and rulings entered by two Courts of Competent Jurisdiction?
  2. Does Plaintiff’s claim fail for lack of standing[1]?
  3. Does the Court lack jurisdiction in the instant case/controversy?
  4. Does Plaintiff’s Motion fail to make a claim upon which relief can be granted?
  5. Does Plaintiff’s claim fail to meet the requisite elements for a Preliminary Injunction?


  1. Full, Faith and Credit, Stare Decisis and Res Judicata.

    In the instant case, the same claims and issues have been litigated, and the same parties have appeared, before two courts of competent jurisdiction (the California lower court and California Supreme Court). In both instances, rulings were entered against Plaintiff. As such, and in the absence of clear abuse by the California courts, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida should defer to prior rulings and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety.

Defendant provides the following authority in support of the above assertions:

Res judicata encompasses limits on both the claims and the issues that may be raised in subsequent proceedings:

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/index.php/Category:Definition

In the instant case, the California Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s holding that Plaintiff, BINA48, did not have “standing” to bring a cause of action. Plaintiff’s Motion, presented before this court today is, in essence, the same motion (with the same issues, facts, and parties) as the one filed and litigated before the California courts in 2003.

The fact that Plaintiff now asserts additional claims (respectively, the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments) does not alter the outcome of the above rationale. The issues and parties presently before the Court are the same issues/parties that appeared before the California courts in 2003 and 2005. Accordingly, Plaintiff is barred from re-litigating these same issues today.

Because Plaintiff cannot prove clear abuse of discretion by the California courts - because the Constitution demands that full, faith and credit be attributed to judicial proceeding of other states - and because the principles of stare decisis and res judicata apply, this honorable Court should deny Plaintiff’s Motion and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety.

Next Page

1. Standing - A person’s right to bring (start) or join a lawsuit because he or she is directly affected by the issues raised. Oran, Daniel. Law Dictionary for Nonlawyers Fourth Edition. New York: Delmar, 2000. (back to top)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 next page>