CivP 14 - Preclusion Flashcards
CLAIM AND ISSUE PRECLUSION.
WHICH PRECLUSION LAW?
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).
If Case 1 and Case 2 are in different judicial systems (for example, state and federal courts or courts in different U.S. states), the court in Case 2 applies the preclusion law of the judicial system that decided Case 1. [Fed or state law]
WHICH PRECLUSION LAW?
• FED Court (anywhere), Fed Law -> FED Court, Fed law (anywhere)
• FED Court (anywhere), Fed Law -> State Court, Fed law (anywhere)
•State 1 Court, State 1 law -> State 2 court, State 1 Law.
• State 1 Court, State 1 law -> FED court, State 1 Law.
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.
Start with
Claim preclusion. If it applies, Case 2 is dismissed.
If it does not apply, then try issue preclusion.
If issue preclusion applies, it streamlines the litigation in Case 2 by deeming an issue established in the case, and thus that issue will not be relitigated.
CLAIM PRECLUSION
(RES JUDICATA)
A claimant may sue only once to vindicate a claim.
So you only get one case in which to seek recovery for all rights to relief for that claim.
Before claim preclusion (also called res judicata) applies, 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.
While various tests have been used to define “cause of action,” the modern approach is to require assertion of all claims arising out of the same transaction or occur- rence that is the subject matter of a claim asserted by the claimant.
Requirements for Claim Preclusion
For a claim to be precluded (or barred), THREE things must be true.
a. Same Claimant vs. Same Defendant
For res judicata to apply, the earlier and latter causes of action must be brought by the same claimant against the same defendant.
Case 1 and Case 2 were brought by the same claimant against the same defendant. (same configuration, not just same parties!)
***Note: Recall compulsory counterclaim rule. If D1 sues P1 later, it will not be claim precluded BUT it will be dismissed under the complusory counterclaim becuase it was the same T/O.
b. Valid, Final Judgment on the Merits
Case 1 must have ended in a valid final judgment on the merits.
Unless the court said the judgment was “without prejudice” when entered, 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.
This is true even if there was no adjudication in Case 1.
c. Case 1 and Case 2 Must Be the “Same Claim”
Case 1 and Case 2 must assert the “same claim.”
MAJORITY VIEW: (including federal law) is that a claim is any right to relief arising from the same transaction or occurrence.
MINORITY VIEW: the so-called “primary rights doctrine.” Under this view, there are separate claims for property damage and for personal injuries that arise in a single event. The theory is that property damage and personal injury invade different rights. (One to be free from personal injury and one to be free from property damage.)
RULE: 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.
Although both merger and bar are used to indicate that claim preclusion (res judicata) is in effect…
MERGER: P won, D lost. where the claimant won the earlier lawsuit, the claim is said to be merged into the prior judgment.
BAR: D Won, P lost. Where the defendant won the earlier lawsuit, the claim is said to be barred by the prior judgment. Bar occurs when a plaintiff loses.
A and B, who were each driving his own car, collide and each is injured and each car is damaged. In Case 1, A sues B to recover for personal injuries. A valid final judgment is entered.
In Case 2, B sues A to recover for injuries from the same wreck. Is Case 2 dismissed under claim preclusion?
No. Case 1 and Case 2 were not brought by the same claimant against the same D, so claim preclusion cannot apply, but remember that Case 2 will be dismissed under the compulsory counterclaim rule.
Compulsory counterlcaim rule: Not claim preclusion but gets dismissed anyways.
A and B, who were each driving his own car, collide and each is injured and each car is damaged. In Case 1, A sues B to recover for personal injuries. A valid final judgment is entered. In case 3, A sues B for property damage. Case 3 dismissed under claim preclusion?
Under the majority view, yes. It’s the same claimant against the same defendant, and it’s part of the same T/O.
But under the primary rights doctrine, the answer would be no bc injury vs property damage.
This is the same as the second requirement for claim preclusion.
ISSUE PRECLUSION (COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL)
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.
Issue preclusion is narrower than claim preclusion.
Here, an issue was litigated in Case 1.
The same issue is then presented in Case 2.
But if issue preclusion applies, the issue cannot be relitigated in Case 2.
It is deemed established in Case 2, thereby streamlining the scope of litigation in Case 2.
Requirements for issue preclusion:
RULE: . 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.
(*) the party using it….
– 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.
…
There are five requirements for issue preclusion:
1. Case 1 Ended in Valid, Final Judgment on the Merits: This is the same as the second requirement for claim preclusion.
2. Same Issue Actually Litigated and Determined in Case 1: The issue must actually have been litigated in Case 1.
3. Issue Was Essential to Judgment in Case 1: The issue must have been essential to the judgment in Case 1. “Essential to the judgment” means that the finding on the issue is the basis for the judgment.
(It was why D or P won the judgment)
4. Against Whom Is Preclusion Used? (Due Process Factor) Issue preclusion can be used only against somebody who was a party to Case 1 or in “privity” with a party.
- “Privity” means that a party to Case 1 represented someone who was not a party to Case 1. (For example, a class action binds all members of the class even though not all class members are parties to the action. They were represented by the class rep.)
- The requirement that the person against whom issue preclusion is being asserted be a party (or in privity) is a principle of due process; every person generally is entitled to a day in court before her property is taken or her rights are affected.
5. BY WHOM Is Preclusion Used? (Mutuality Rules): Issue preclusion can be used by someone who was a party to Case 1 (or in privity with a party).
The big question is whether it can be used by someone who was not a party to Case 1 (or in privity with a party).
When someone who was not a party to Case 1 tries to use issue preclusion in Case 2, it is called “nonmutual” issue preclusion.
a. Nonmutual Defensive Issue Preclusion: The person using preclusion to avoid liability was not a party to Case 1 and IS the defendant in Case 2. :
•as long as person its being used against had a full chance to litigate in case 1.
b. Nonmutual Offensive Issue Preclusion: Person using preclusion was not a party to Case 1 and is the plaintiff in Case 2.
• Most states say NO!
•But some allow it if it would be fair.
Fairness Factors
In determining whether nonmutual offensive issue preclusion is fair, the court will consider whether:
• The party to be bound had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in Case 1;
• The party to be bound had a strong incentive to litigate Case 1. (For example, if Case 1 was for a small sum, the party has less incentive to litigate the action fully unless she knew further, larger cases might be forthcoming.);
• The party asserting issue preclusion could have easily joined to Case 1. (For example, if you could have easily joined Joey’s Case 1, a court might not let you use the Case 1 judgment against Joey.); and
• There have been no inconsistent findings on the issue. So if there had been multiple cases about Joey’s wreck, and sometimes Joey was found negligent and sometimes not, it would be unfair to let you get issue preclusion on a negligence finding.
