Civ Pro: Preclusion Flashcards
Preclusion
Whenever there has been an earlier case, watch for these issues, which concern the preclusive effect of a prior judgment on the merits. The question is whether a judgment already entered (case 1) precludes litigation of any matters in another case (case 2).
Claim Preclusion (res judicata)
You only get to sue on a claim once. So you only get one case in which to vindicate all rights to relief for that claim.
Requirements for CP
- Case 1 and Case 2 were brought by same claimant against the same D. (NOT just same parties but the same guy suing same guy).
- Case 1 ended in valid final judgment on the merits. GR: unless the court said otherwise when it entered the judgment, any judgment is “on the merits” UNLESS based on Jurisdiction, venue, or indispensable parties
- Case 1 and 2 asserted the same claim
- Asserting same claim:
Majority view: a claim is any right to relief arising from a transaction or occurrence.
Important minority view: there are separate claims for property damage and for personal injuries because those are different “primary rights”
Case 1: P sues D for personal injuries sustained in an auto collision. A valid final judgment on the merits is entered. Case 2: p filed a second suit against D, seeking recovery for the property damage from same crash. Should the court dismiss Case 2 under the doctrine of claim preclusion?
- Yes (majority view) because same claimant against same D. Case 1 ended in final judgment on merits. Asserted same claim. So p tried to sue twice on same t/o
- minority view – do not dismiss because case 1 and case involve diff primary rights
Issue Preclusion (collateral estoppel)
This is narrower. An issue was litigated in Case 1. The same issue comes up in Case 2. But if issue preclusion applies, then the issue cannot be litigated in Case 2. Deem it established in Case 3.
Requirements for Issue Preclusion
- Case 1 ended in a valid, final judgment on the merits
- Same issue was actually litigated in and determined in Case 1. (went to trial)
- Issue was essential to the judgment in case 1.
Against whom can issue preclusion be asserted?
Only against somebody who was a party to case 1. Or was repped by part in case 1. (e.g. cross action).
Due process: a judgment can’t be used against u unless you were a party.
By whom can issue preclusion be asserted>
Starting point (mutuality): only by one who was party to case 1. THIS IS NOT required by due process, and some courts have rejected it to allow non mutual assertion of issue preclusion.
Nonmutual defensive issue preclusion
just means one using it was not a party in case 1 and is a D in case 2.
Roommate, driving your car, is involved in a car collision with Joey. You are vicariously liable for roommates acts. Case 1: Joey sues roommate, Roommate wins, based on a finding that joey was negligent, which caused the wreck. Court enters final judgment for roommate. Case 2: joey sues you. Can you assert issue preclusion as to the finding of joey’s negligence.
- Did case 1 end in a valid final judgment on the merits? YES
- Was the same issue litigated and determined in case 1? yes - Joey’s negligence was litigated.
- Was that issue essential to the judgment in Case 1? Yes its why roommate won.
- Is issue preclusion being asserted against one who was party to case 1? Against Joey-So yes.
- BUT, is it being asserted by someone who was NOT party to Case 1. Under Mutuality Rule, could not be done. Most courts today allow this if Joey had full chance to litigate in Case 1-which he did
Nonmutual offensive issue preclusion
Means the one using it was not a party in Case 1 and is the P in case 2.
Roommate, driving your car, is involved in a car collision with Joey. You are vicariously liable for roommates acts. Case 1: Joey sues roommate, Roommate wins, based on a finding that joey was negligent, which caused the wreck. Court enters final judgment for roommate. Case 2: you sue Joey. You sue to impose upon Joey liability for damage to your car from the wreck Joey had with roommate. You want to assert collateral estoppel as to the finding in the first case the Joey was negligent. Can you?
1-4 –first four reqs are met.
5. Tough because issue preclusion is asserted non mutually. here the person asserting is a P. Under mutuality rule, could not be done. Most courts today probably say NO.
BUT CLEAR TREND will allow it if IT IS NOT UNFAIR.
Factors:
a. Joey had full and fair opp. to litigate in case 1.
b. Joey could foresee multiple suits;
c. You could not have joined easily in case 1; and
d. NO inconsistent judgments about this issue.
