6. Preclusion

Question 1

Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata)

Answer 1

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

Requirement 2: Case 1 ended in a valid final judgment ON THE MERITS
General rule: unless the court said otherwise when it entered the judgment, any judgment is “on the merits” unless it was based on jurisdiction, venue, or indispensable party, even if you didn’t litigate anything

Requirement 3: Case 1 and Case 2 asserted same "claim" 
Majority View (incl. fed law): a claim is any right to relief arising form a transaction or occurrence
Minority View: there are separate claims for property damage and from personal injuries  because those are different "primary right"

Question 2

Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel)

Answer 2

Requirement 1: Case 1 ended in a valid, final judgment on the merits (same as res judicata)

Requirement 2: The same issue was actually litigated and determined in Case 1. Must have litigated unlike res judicata

Requirement 3: The issue was essential to the judgment in Case 1. That means the finding on this issue is the basis for the judgment

Question 3

Against whom can issue preclusion be asserted?

Answer 3

It can only be used against somebody who was a party to Case 1 (or represented by a party in Case 1–like a class action). Due process requires that they have their day in court.

When someone who was not a party to Case 1 tries to use issue preclusion in Case 2, it is called “nonmutual” issue preclusion.

Question 4

What happens when someone who was not a party to Case 1 tries to use issue preclusion in Case 2?
(two ways)

Answer 4

Nonmutual DEFENSIVE Issue Preclusion: the one using it was not a party to Case 1 and is D in Case 2

(1) Case 1 ended in a valid, final judgment on the merits,
(2) same issue was litigated and determined in Case 1,
(3) issue was essential to case was,
(4) issue preclusion be asserted against one who was party to Case 1, and
(5) the party has a full chance to litigate in case one

Nonmutual OFFENSIVE Issue Preclusion: the one using it was not a party to Case 1 and is P in Case 2

(1) - (4)
(5) under the mutuality rule because it is being asserted by a plaintiff most courts would say no however there is a clear trend that will allow it if it is not unfair:
- full and fair opportunity to litigate in Case 1
- incentive to litigate strongly in Case 1
- P could not have joined easily in Case 1