Claim & Issue Preclusion

Question 1

Exceptions to “Same Parties” General Rule

Answer 1

Taylor v. Sturgell

1. Consent by parties to be bound by prior action
2. Preexisting substantive legal relationships
3. Adequate representation by someone with the same interests who was a party
4. A party assumed control over prior litigation
5. Relitigation of prior judgment through a proxy/agent
6. Special statutory schemes such as bankruptcy and probate proceedings

Question 2

Claim Preclusion Essential Elements

Answer 2

1. Final, valid judgment on the merits
2. Precludes the same parties (and those closely related to them)
3. From litigating the same (or sufficiently similar) claim in a subsequent lawsuit
4. Preclusion operates to prevent offensive and defensive splitting of claims that were or should have been asserted in the prior proceeding

Question 3

3 Views of Claim Preclusion

Answer 3

1. Majority - one single cause of action exists from a single act
2. Minority - a single tort that results in damage to both property and person gives rise to two distinct causes of action
3. Restatement §24 - considers a claim to encompass all rights to relief “with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action arose”

Question 4

Claim Preclusion Exceptions

Answer 4

a. Parties have agreed to that plaintiff may split claims
b. Court in first action has expressly reserved P’s right to maintain 2nd action
c. P was unable to rely on a certain theory of the case or to seek a certain remedy or form of relief in the first action because of the limits on SMJ or other restrictions
d. The judgment in the first action was plainly inconsistent with fair and equitable implementation of a statutory or constitutional scheme
e. For reasons of substantive policy in a case involving a continuing or recurrent wrong, the plaintiff is given an option to sue once for the total harm, both past and prospective, or to sue from time to time for the damages incurred to the date of suit
f. It is clearly and convincingly shown that the policies favoring preclusion of a second action are overcome for an extraordinary reason

Question 5

Issue Preclusion Exceptions

Answer 5

1. The party against whom preclusion is sought could not, as a matter of law, have obtained review of the judgment in the initial action (i.e., was the prevailing party in first action);
2. The issue is one of law and
   a. the two actions involve claims that are substantially unrelated, or
   b. a new determination is warranted in order to take account of an intervening change in the applicable legal context or otherwise to avoid inequitable administration of the laws; or
3. A new determination of the issue is warranted by differences in the quality or extensiveness of the procedures followed in the two courts or by factors relating to the allocation of jurisdiction between them; or
4. The party against whom preclusion is sought had a significantly heavier burden of persuasion with respect to the issue in the initial action than in the subsequent action; the burden has shifted to his adversary; or the adversary has a significantly heavier burden than he had in the first action;
5. There is a clear and convincing need for a new determination of the issue
   a. because of the potential adverse impact of the determination on the public interest or the interests of persons not themselves parties in the initial action,
   b. because it was not sufficiently foreseeable at the time of the initial action that the issue would arise in the context of a subsequent action, or
   c. because the party sought to be precluded, as a result of the conduct of his adversary or other special circumstances, did not have an adequate opportunity or incentive to obtain a full and fair adjudication in the initial action

Question 6

Issue Preclusion Essential Elements

Answer 6

1. An issue of fact or law has been
2. Actually litigated and determined
3. By a valid final judgement, and
4. The determination was essential to the judgement

Question 7

Same Parties General Rule

Answer 7

Only the original parties and those in privity with them are bounds by claims/issues litigated in a prior action

Question 8

Factors to consider when court exercises discretion to permit offensive non-mutual issue preclusion

Answer 8

1. If the prior action had lesser value, such that incentives are different
2. If prior judgment is inconsistent with one or more other judgments against defendant
3. If procedural opportunities were not available in prior action
4. If new plaintiff could have joined prior action