Claim and Issue Preclusion

Question 1

Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata)
CA: Primary Rights Doctrine

Answer 1

Claim preclusion bars a party from a prior case from bringing the same cause of action again. The following must be met:
* (i) earlier case had valid, final judgment on the merits
* (ii) cause of action was actually litigated
* (iii) same parties (case is brought by same claimant against same defendant), and
* (iv) same claim (cause of action arose out of same transaction or occurrence)

California: Primary Rights Doctrine
* CA follows primary rights doctrine, which defines a cause of action as an invasion of a single PRIMARY RIGHT, such as right to be free from personal injury or right to be free from harm to property.
* There cannot be two lawsuits where cause of action is from invasion of a SINGLE primary right, but you CAN have causes of action for **different primary rights. **

If a claim was dismissed due to issue with SMJ, PJ, or venue, it is NOT a valid, final judgment on the merits, because it wasn’t adjudicated “on the merits.”

Question 2

Issue Preclusion (Collateral Estoppel)

Answer 2

Issue preclusion bars a party from a prior case from relitigating an issue that was resolved in that case. It requires:
* (i) earlier case had valid, final judgment on the merits
* (ii) issue was actually litigated, and
* (iii) issue was essential to prior litigation
* (iv) issues are identical in prior and later action

Party against whom issue preclusion sought must have had fair and full opportunity to litigate issue

Non-Mutuality
* Defensive nonmutual collateral estoppel: Nonparty that’s D in later case can use issue preclusion against P who was party in prior case
* Offensive nonmutual collateral estoppel: nonparty that’s P in later case can use issue preclusion against D who was party in prior case [courts more hesitant; will consider FAIRNESS]

Note: CA allows both offensive and defensive nonmutual collateral estoppel

Mutuality
* Some jx require mutuality