Civil Procedure Learning Questions - Set 9 Flashcards
Under the doctrine of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel), a judgment in a prior case will be sufficient to bind the plaintiff or defendant in subsequent actions on different causes of action as to issues that were:
A
Decided by the judge
B
Actually litigated and essential to the judgment
C
Decided by a jury
B
Under the doctrine of issue preclusion (also called collateral estoppel), a judgment binds the plaintiff or defendant in subsequent actions on different causes of action as to issues that were actually litigated and essential to the judgment.
It is not sufficient merely that the issue was decided by a judge; the issue still must be one that was actually litigated and essential to the judgment.
Neither is it sufficient that the issue was decided by the jury; it still must be one that was actually litigated and essential to the judgment.
Which of the following statements regarding the parties involved provides a sufficient basis for applying claim preclusion?
A
The earlier and the latter causes of action involved the same parties
B
The earlier and the latter causes of action were brought by the same claimant against the same defendant
C
The earlier and the latter causes of action were brought against the same defendant
B
For res judicata to apply, the earlier and latter causes of action must be brought by the same claimant against the same defendant.
It is not sufficient simply that both cases involve the same parties. For example, if the defendant in the first case is the claimant in the second case, claim preclusion will not apply even though both cases involve the same parties.
Similarly, it is not sufficient that both cases were brought against the same defendant. Claim preclusion will not apply unless the claimant is the same in both cases.
For claim preclusion (res judicata) to apply, it is not necessary that the judgment be:
A
Valid
B
Satisfied
C
On the merits
D
Final
B
For claim preclusion (res judicata) to apply, it is not necessary that the judgment be satisfied.
Before merger or bar apply, it must be shown that (i) the earlier judgment is a valid, final judgment “on the merits”; (ii) the cases are brought by the same claimant against the same defendant; and (iii) the same “cause of action” (or “claim”) is involved in the later lawsuit.
Once a final judgment on the merits has been rendered on a particular cause of action, the claimant is prevented from asserting the same cause of action in a later lawsuit by the doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata).
When the claimant won the earlier lawsuit, the claim is said to be:
A
Barred by the prior judgment
B
Either merged into or barred by the prior judgment
C
Merged into the prior judgment
C
Although both merger and bar are used to indicate that claim preclusion (res judicata) is in effect, where the claimant won the earlier lawsuit, the claim is said to be merged into the prior judgment.
Where the defendant won the earlier lawsuit, the claim is said to be barred by the prior judgment. Because the question specifically states that the claimant won the earlier suit, to say that the claim either merged into or is barred by the prior judgment is incorrect.
A taxi crashed into a telephone pole. The taxi’s passenger commenced a negligence action against the taxi driver, properly serving the taxi driver with the summons and complaint. The taxi driver, being an independent contractor, turned the summons and complaint over to his insurance company. After trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the passenger, finding that the taxi driver’s negligence was the sole cause of the crash.
The passenger then commenced a second action, this time against the owner of the taxi. The passenger alleged that the taxi driver’s negligence was the sole cause of the crash and that the owner was vicariously liable. The passenger immediately moved for partial summary judgment against the owner based on the finding of the taxi driver’s negligence in the prior action.
If the court denies the motion, what is the most likely reason?
A Claim preclusion bars the passenger’s claim against the owner.
B The taxi owner is not precluded from litigating the issue of whether the taxi driver was negligent.
C The passenger waived her right to sue the owner by not joining the owner as a defendant in the first action.
D The taxi driver is a necessary and indispensable party to the second action.
B
The taxi owner is not precluded from litigating that issue. For a party to be bound by issue preclusion, (i) there must have been a final judgment; (ii) the issue must have been actually litigated and determined; (iii) the issue must have been essential to the judgment; and (iv) the party to be bound by the prior judgment must have been a party to the prior action or in privity with a party to the prior action. Here, it is the last element that is missing. The taxi owner was not a party to the prior action, and there is no indication that the taxi owner was in privity with the taxi driver. (A) is incorrect for a similar reason. Claim preclusion applies when the earlier case and the later case are brought by the same claimant against the same defendant (or where a party in the later case is in privity with a party in the earlier case). Here, the claim is against a different defendant who was not in privity with the previous defendant. (C) and (D) are incorrect because there generally is no requirement to join joint tortfeasors in a single action. (The exception being if state law requires it.) The risk the plaintiff runs in such a situation is that she loses the first case and thereafter might be bound by issue preclusion in subsequent actions.QUESTION ID: MJ151
An employee filed an action against his employer in federal district court, claiming unlawful age discrimination in employment. The employee did not like the judge who was assigned to the case because the employee perceived the judge to be antagonistic to employment discrimination claims. Two weeks after filing the action and before the employer served its answer to the complaint, the employee voluntarily dismissed the action. Several months later, the employee filed an identical action in the same court.
Is the employee’s claim barred because of the prior dismissal?
A Yes, because a voluntary dismissal operates as adjudication on the merits and bars subsequent assertions of the same claim.
B Yes, because, while voluntary dismissals for valid reasons will not preclude subsequent assertions of a claim, the employee’s reason for the voluntary dismissal in this instance is invalid and thus bars the subsequent assertion of the claim.
C No, unless the employer properly asserts the affirmative defense of claim preclusion.
D No, because the prior dismissal was without prejudice since the employee had not previously dismissed the same claim.
D
The employee’s claim is not barred because of the prior dismissal. A plaintiff may of right dismiss an action one time without prejudice before the defendant serves its answer. (A) is incorrect because a voluntary dismissal is not an adjudication on the merits. (B) is incorrect because a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case for any reason. (C) is incorrect because claim preclusion applies when there has been a valid, final judgment on the merits. A voluntary dismissal is not a final judgment on the merits; therefore the employer cannot properly assert the defense of claim preclusion.
A corporation operated several factories that were emitting toxic chemicals into the air. The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) sued the corporation in federal court for violation of several environmental laws, and the jury found in favor of the EPA. One of the corporation’s factories was located near a town, and some residents believed that their health had been harmed by the factory’s emissions. One resident sued the corporation in federal district court, alleging damages stemming from the factory’s violation of the environmental laws. The resident asserts issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) to establish the factory’s violation of the environmental laws.
If the court permits the resident to use issue preclusion to establish the violation, what is the likely reason?
A A nonparty in the first case is always allowed to use issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) offensively or defensively against someone who was a party in the first case.
B There was a valid, final judgment on the merits in the first case, and the same cause of action is involved in the resident’s lawsuit.
C The court determined that it is fair and equitable to allow the resident to use issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) offensively.
D A party can use issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) offensively when the defendant has been found to have violated a federal law.
C
If the court permits the resident to use issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) to establish the violation, it is likely because the court determined that it is fair and equitable for the resident to do so. Under the traditional mutuality rule, only someone who was a party in the previous case can use issue preclusion. However, this rule has been modified to allow nonparties to use issue preclusion in certain circumstances. When a nonparty wants to use a previous judgment offensively, the court must consider whether it would be fair and equitable to allow the nonparty to do so. (A) is therefore incorrect because nonparties are not always allowed to use issue preclusion offensively or defensively. (B) is incorrect because the same cause of action need not be involved. The same cause of action is a requirement for claim preclusion (res judicata). (D) is an incorrect statement of the law.
A citizen of State A ran a red light at a traffic intersection, striking a pedestrian, a citizen of State B, who was lawfully in the middle of the crosswalk at the time. The accident occurred in State B. Despite the pedestrian’s extensive injuries, the driver was more concerned with the damage to his new automobile. The driver sued the pedestrian in a state court of State B for $90,000 for damage to his car. The driver promptly lost, and then decided to bring suit in federal court, claiming diversity jurisdiction.
May the driver successfully bring his claim in federal court?
A Yes, because the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are met.
B Yes, because a state court decision does not bind a federal court.
C No, because all claims merged with the state court case.
D No, because the claim is barred.
D
The driver will not be successful because the claim is barred. Bar occurs when a plaintiff loses. The adverse judgment “bars” the plaintiff from relitigating the cause of action. (A) is incorrect because, although the requirements of diversity jurisdiction are met, the driver will not be successful because the claim is barred, as discussed above. (B) is incorrect. Federal courts will give the same preclusive effect of a state court decision that the state that issued it would; e.g., here, a federal court would give the State B state court decision the same preclusive effect that another State B state court would. (C) is incorrect. Merger occurs when a plaintiff wins; his cause of action is said to “merge” into the judgment such that he cannot relitigate the cause of action later.
