Claim/Issue Preclusion

Question 1

What are the fairness factors determining when a nonparty to a case may assert issue preclusion in a subsequent case in which they are the plaintiff?

Answer 1

Whether the plaintiff could have joined the first case, whether the defendant had a full/fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first case, whether the defendant had a strong incentive to litigate the issue in the first case, whether there have been inconsistent findings as to the issue

Question 2

What are the requirements for issue preclusion to apply?

Answer 2

The same issue must be involved in the first and second case, the first case must have ended in a valid/ final judgment, the issue must have been actually litigated and essential to the judgment in the first case, the party against whom issue preclusion is asserted must have had a full/fair opportunity to litigate the first case (party or in privity), and it must be fair to allow the party asserting issue preclusion to do so.

Question 3

What are the requirements for claim preclusion to apply?

Answer 3

The same plaintiff is suing the same defendant, the first case ended in a valid/final judgement, and the cases involve the same claim (majority view: arising from same transaction/occurrence)

Question 4

When does a case end in valid/final judgment on the merits for purposes of applying issue/claim preclusion?

Answer 4

Whenever a court does not state that the judgment is “without prejudice”, BUT not when case is dismissed due to lack of SMJ, improper venue, or failure to join an indispensable party

Question 5

What are examples of cases in which an issue is not actually litigated/determined?

Answer 5

A settlement, default judgment, or consent judgment

Question 6

What choice of law rule governs the law applied to determine preclusion issues?

Answer 6

The court adjudicating the second case should apply the preclusion law of the court which adjudicated the first case.