Civ Pro: Claim and Issue Preclusion

Preclusion in DIfferent Judicial systems:

The Court in the new case applies the preclusion law of the judicial system that decided the first case

Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata) Requirements

(1) Both cases were brought by the same claimant against the same defendant; (2) Case 1 ended with a valid final judgment on the merits; (3) Case 1 and Case 2 must be the “same claim”

Claim Preclusion: Valid Final Judgment on the Merits

Unless a court says a judgment was “without prejudice”, a judgment is on the merits unless it was based on: (1) a lack of Jx (PJ and SMJ); (2) improper venue; or (3) a failure to join an indispensable party

Claim Preclusion “Same Claim”

Federal law and majority view is that a claim is any right to relief arising from a transaction or occurrence. The minority view is the “primary rights doctrine” which treats claims as separate if they involve different rights (such as property and personal injury)

Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel)

Issue preclusion applies when an issue was litigated in Case 1 and presented in Case 2. If issue preclusion applies, the issue cannot be relitigated in Case 2 and instead is deemed “established.

Requirements for Issue Preclusion

(1) The case ended in a valid, final judgment on the merits; (2) the same issue was actually litigated and determined in Case 1; (3) the issue was essential to the judgment in Case 1; (4) issue preclusion is being asserted against a party in Case 1 or someone in privity with a party in case 1 (Due Process Factor); and (5) mutuality rules are satisfied

Issue Preclusion: “Essential to the Judgment”

Means that the finding on the issue is the basis for the judgment in Case 1

Issue Preclusion: Due Process Factor

Issue preclusion can only be used against someone who was a party to Case 1 or in privity with a party in Case 1. Privity here means that a party to Case 1 represented someone who was not a party to Case 1, such as a class action.

Issue Preclusion Mutuality Rules

Every court agrees that issue preclusion can be used by someone who was a party to/in privity with a party to Case 1. For nonmutual Issue preclusion: nonmutual defensive issue preclusion applies when the moving party was not a party to case 1 and is the defendant in case 2; nonmutual offensive issue preclusion applies when the moving party was not a party to Case 1 and is the plaintiff in Case 2. Nonmutual Offensive issue preclusion must meet the fairness factors test

Nonmutual Issue Preclusion Fairness Factors

In determining whether nonmutual offensive issue preclusion is fair, the court must consider whether: (1) the party to be bound had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in Case 1; (2) the party to be bound had a strong incentive to litigate in Case 1; (3) the party asserting issue preclusion could not have easily joined Case 1; and (4) there have been no inconsistent findings on the issue