Claim & Issue Preclusion CP

Federal Civil Procedure

Would claim preclusion (“res judicata”) come into effect if a bar patron sues a bar owner for negligence and loses at trial on the merits, but then brings the exact same claim against an employee of the bar?

Same parties: the second case brough by the same party against the same party (EG, same P against same D).

• An entity in privity with a party is considered “same party” (EG an employee and employer may be the same party for claim preclusion purposes).

When is a final judgment on the merits for purposes of claim preclusion? When is it not on the merits?

Final Judgment on the merits in original claim:

• Judgment is final even if it is being appealed

• Dismissal with prejudice operates as a judgment on the merits

• Technical dismissals (SMJ, PJ, Venue) are not “on the merits” because they are not evaluating the substance of the plaintiff’s claim.

To what extent must a claim be the “same claim” for purposes of claim preclusion?

Same Claim: Same claims in the first and subsequent suit

• Claim refers to the transaction or series of transactions or occurrences giving rise to the action

• IE even if not previously raised, claim can be precluded if it is sufficiently related to prior claims.

When will a claim be precluded under res judicata/claim preclusion?

Requirements: New claim will be precluded if:

1. Same parties

2. Same claim

3. Final judgment on the merits in original claim.

What is claim preclusion (res judicata)?

A party that has had an opportunity to litigate a claim cannot re-litigate the claim once final judgment has been rendered

Claim preclusion is an affirmative defense

What are the mutuality vs non-mutuality views of issue preclusion?

Who may assert issue preclusion-two view:

• Mutuality (traditional view): only parties to prior litigation can assert issue preclusion

• Non-mutuality (modern view): issue preclusion may be asserted by those who were not parties in the prior litigation.

When is an issue essential to the judgment for purpose of analyzing issue preclusion?

Issue was essential to the judgment: IE judgment would have been different in the first case absent litigation of this issue.

• Must be clear how the issue was decided by the original trier of fact.

What are the requirements for barring relitigation of an issue under collateral estoppel/issue preclusion?

Requirements:

1. Final judgment on the merits

2. Same issue

3. Issue was essential to the judgment

4. Asserted against actual party to previous case

What is issue preclusion (collateral estoppel)? How is it different than claim preclusion?

Prevents relitigation of particular issues of fact or law that have been actually litigated and previously determined

• Narrower than claim preclusion; does not preclude the whole claim necessarily, just the same issue

• Issue must have been actually litigated; distinguish from claim preclusion, which only requires opportunity to litigate

What factors will a court consider in determining whether a P can prevent D from relitigating an issue under issue preclusion?

Factors:

1. Whether party against whom prior judgment is asserted had full and fair opportunity to litigate

2. Whether party could foresee multiple suits being filed

3. Whether the party asserting IP controlled or could have joined the prior litigation

4. There are no inconsistent judgment on the record

How can a prior judgment be used offensively? When will courts allow it?

Offensive use of prior judgment: P seeks to prevent D from re-litigating an issue that D previously lost a prior suit against a different party

• Court will allow only if deemed fair after balancing factors

What is a defensive use of a prior judgment? When would it be allowed?

Defensive use of prior judgment: D seeks to prevent P from re-litigating an issue P lost in a prior suit against a different party.

• Allowed if the party against whom issue preclusion is asserted had a full chance to litigate the issue previously.