- 28 -
dismissing counterclaim without notice and an opportunity to
oppose). But cf. Cochran v. Morris, 73 F.3d 1310, 1320-1321,
1321 n.2 (4th Cir. 1996) (Michael, J., dissenting) (argues for an
absolute prohibition against dismissals on the merits that are
entered without notice and an opportunity to respond).
(3) Application of Issue Preclusion Sua Sponte
This Court has been apprised of the decision in Monahan I
and finds it appropriate to consider sua sponte the preclusive
effect of facts established in that proceeding, which facts are
relevant to an issue in dispute in this case; i.e., whether
Mr. Bell was the ultimate source of the funds loaned to Chestnut
Grove and Group M. Petitioners are precluded from denying that,
on February 26, 1987, and December 22, 1988 (as will be explained
below, the dates on which Aldergrove received certain “interest”
payments), petitioner controlled Aldergrove partnership matters
and benefited from and controlled the funds held by Aldergrove
(the sua sponte issues).6 All five conditions of the Peck
requirements, see supra sec. II.C.3.b., are satisfied with
respect to the sua sponte issues, and, therefore, issue
6 This Court sua sponte could preclude petitioners from
denying certain facts established in Monahan I relating to
petitioner's transfer of $125,000 to Aldergrove on Feb. 25, 1988,
and subsequent transfers, but for convenience we shall examine
facts relating to certain interest payments made in 1987 and
1988.
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011