Module 14 - Claim and Issue Preclusion

What is the basic idea behind claim and issue preclusion?

Claim and issue preclusion involve determining whether a prior judgment in one case (Case 1) precludes litigation of matters in another case (Case 2). The preclusion law of the court where Case 1 was decided governs Case 2.

What preclusion law applies when Case 1 is in federal court in Kentucky and Case 2 is in state court in Arkansas?

The state judge in Case 2 applies federal preclusion law because Case 1 was decided in federal court.

What preclusion law applies when Case 1 is in state court in Colorado and Case 2 is in state court in Wisconsin?

The Wisconsin judge in Case 2 applies Colorado law because Colorado law decided Case 1.

What is claim preclusion (res judicata)?

Claim preclusion bars a claimant from suing again to vindicate the same claim. A claimant can only bring one case to seek recovery for all rights to relief for that claim.

What are the three requirements for claim preclusion?

1. Same claimant suing the same defendant.

2. Valid, final judgment on the merits in Case 1.

3. Case 1 and Case 2 must assert the same claim.

Same Claim Suing the Same Defendant for Claim Preclusion

Case 1 and Case 2 were brought by the same claimant against the same defendant.

Unless the court said the judgment was "without prejudice,"

any judgment is "on the merits" unless it was based on a lack of jurisdiction (both personal and subject matter), improper venue, or a failure to join an indispensable party.

What does "on the merits" mean in the context of claim preclusion?

A judgment is considered "on the merits" unless it was based on lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join an indispensable party.

What is the "majority view" for determining if Case 1 and Case 2 involve the same claim?

The majority view is that a claim arises from a single transaction or occurrence, meaning all rights to relief from the same incident are part of one claim.

What is the "primary rights doctrine"?

Under the primary rights doctrine, there are separate claims for property damage and personal injury even if they arise from the same event.

What is issue preclusion (collateral estoppel)?

Issue preclusion prevents the relitigation of an issue that has already been decided in Case 1, thus streamlining litigation in Case 2.

What are the five requirements for issue preclusion?

1. Case 1 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. The party against whom preclusion is used was a party to Case 1 or in privity with a party.

5. The person using preclusion was a party to Case 1 or in privity with a party.

What does it mean for an issue to be "essential" to the judgment in Case 1?

An issue is "essential" if the finding on that issue was the basis for the judgment in Case 1.

Who can be precluded from relitigating an issue under issue preclusion?

Only someone who was a party to Case 1 or in privity with a party can be precluded.

What is the "privity" rule in issue preclusion?

A person in "privity" with a party to Case 1 can be precluded from relitigating an issue, meaning they were represented by someone in Case 1.

What is "nonmutual" issue preclusion?

Nonmutual issue preclusion occurs when someone who was not a party to Case 1 seeks to use the judgment from Case 1 in Case 2.

What is nonmutual defensive issue preclusion?

Nonmutual defensive issue preclusion occurs when a defendant in Case 2, who was not a party to Case 1, uses a judgment from Case 1 to defend against the claim.

What is nonmutual offensive issue preclusion?

Nonmutual offensive issue preclusion occurs when a plaintiff in Case 2, who was not a party to Case 1, uses a judgment from Case 1 to assert a claim.

What fairness factors are considered in nonmutual offensive issue preclusion?

The court will consider:

1. Whether the party to be bound had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in Case 1.

2. Whether the party had a strong incentive to litigate Case 1.

3. Whether the party asserting preclusion could have joined Case 1.

4. Whether there were inconsistent findings in different cases.

Can nonmutual offensive issue preclusion be used if the party asserting it could have easily joined Case 1?

No, if the party could have easily joined Case 1, a court might prevent them from using issue preclusion in Case 2.

In what case can a party use nonmutual defensive issue preclusion even if they were not a party to Case 1?

A party can use nonmutual defensive issue preclusion if the party to be bound had a full opportunity to litigate the issue in Case 1 and had a strong incentive to do so.