Claim and Issue Preclusion

Question 1

Preclusion

Answer 1

Whether a judgment already entered in Case 1 precludes litigation of any matters in Case 2
-If Case 1 and Case 2 are in different judicial systems, Case 2 applies the preclusion laws of the judicial system in Case 1
-Start analysis with Res Judicata. If it doesn’t apply, move to issue preclusion

Question 2

Barred by prior judgment

Answer 2

If the defendant won Case 1, then the plaintiff’s same claim in Case 2 is “barred by prior judgment”

Question 3

Merged into the prior judgment

Answer 3

If the plaintiff won Case 1, then the plaintiff’s same claim in Case 2 is “merged into the prior judgment”

Question 4

Res judicata (claim preclusion)

Answer 4

A plaintiff only receives one case to seek recovery for all rights to relief for that claim. Must be:
1. Same claimant suing the same defendant
2. Case 1 must have ended in a valid final judgment on the merits
-Not on the merits if based on lack of PJ, SMJ, improper venue, or failure to join an indispensable party
3. Claim arose from the same transaction or occurrence
-Minority view (“primary rights doctrine”): separates claims for property damage and personal injury

Question 5

Collateral estoppel (issue preclusion)

Answer 5

Issue preclusion is narrow than claim preclusion:
1. Case 1 must have ended in a valid final judgment on the merits
2.** Same issue was litigated and determined in Case 1
3. Issue was “essential to the judgment”**
4. Due process factor: may only be raised by party or someone in “privity” with the party
-Privity means that the party represented someone other than themselves in Case 1
5. **Mutuality rule: whether issue preclusion can be raised by a nonparty to Case 1 depends on how its used
-Allowed when raised by defendant in Case 2 (non-mutual defensive issue preclusion)
-Sometimes allowed, based on fairness factors, when raised by plaintiff in Case 2 (non-mutual offensive issue preclusion)

Question 6

Fairness factors for non-mutual offensive issue preclusion

Answer 6

1. Whether the party to be bound had a full and fair opportunity to litigation in Case 1
2. Whether the party to be bound had a strong incentive to litigate Case 1
3. Whether the party asserting issue preclusion could have easily joined Case 1
4. Whether there inconsistent findings on the issue