Tricarichi v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, L.L.P.

Summary

The Eighth District Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed summary judgment for PricewaterhouseCoopers, holding that Michael Tricarichi's Ohio fraudulent-inducement claims were barred by res judicata based on prior Nevada litigation concerning the same Midco transaction. The court concluded that the newly discovered evidence and alleged internal policy had already been litigated or could have been litigated in the Nevada proceedings. The court overruled Tricarichi's assignments of error and affirmed the judgment.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and reasonable minds can reach only a conclusion adverse to the nonmoving party; appellate review is de novo.
2. Res judicata barred Tricarichi's Ohio claim because the Nevada proceedings involved the same parties, arose from the same transaction or occurrence, resulted in final judgments on the merits, and addressed claims or issues that were or could have been litigated there, even though the Ohio complaint characterized the claim as fraudulent inducement rather than negligence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment based on the Nevada courts' treatment of the Marshall transaction and the Wow! Email.
2. Whether res judicata barred Tricarichi's Ohio fraudulent-inducement claim because the parties, underlying transaction, and issues had already been litigated in Nevada.

Disposition

affirmed