Multiple Parties and Claims

Question 1

Claim Preclusion

Answer 1

The doctrine of claim preclusion (res judicata) provides that a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties from successive litigation of an identical claim in a subsequent action. For claim preclusion to apply, the claimant and the defendant must be the same (and in the same roles) in both the original action and the subsequently filed action. Because application of claim preclusion is limited to the parties (or their privies), a similar action by a different party would not be precluded.

Question 2

Issue Preclusion

Answer 2

The doctrine of issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) precludes the relitigation of issues of fact or law that have already been necessarily determined by a judge or jury as part of an earlier claim. Unlike claim preclusion, issue preclusion does not require strict mutuality of parties, but only that the party against whom the issue is to be precluded (or one in privity with that party) must have been a party to the original action (i.e., offensive collateral estoppel). Other elements necessary for issue preclusion to apply are that (i) the issue sought to be precluded must be the same as that involved in the prior action; (ii) the issue must have been actually litigated in the prior action; (iii) the issue must have been determined by a valid and binding final judgment; and (iv) the determination of the issue must have been essential to the prior judgment.

Question 3

Nonparty Intervention

Answer 3

Under Rule 24, a nonparty has the right to intervene in an action when, upon timely motion, (1) the nonparty has an interest in the subject matter of the action; (2) the disposition of the action may impair the nonparty’s interests; and (3) the nonparty’s interest is not adequately represented by existing parties. The burden is on the party seeking to intervene.

Question 4

Joining separate claims of different plaintiffs

Answer 4

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 20, persons may join in one action as plaintiffs if (i) they assert any right to relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or arising out of the same transaction or occurrence, and (ii) there will be any question of law or fact common to all plaintiffs.

Question 5

Compulsory Counterclaim rule (failing to make a counterclaim)

Answer 5

A counterclaim is a claim for relief made against an opposing party after an original claim has been made. A defendant must include in her answer to a complaint any claim that the defendant has against the plaintiff that arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim. A party who fails to assert a compulsory counterclaim waives the right to sue on the claim and is generally precluded from ever suing on the claim in federal court.

Question 6

Supplemental jurisdiction: Common-nucleus-of-operative fact test.

Answer 6

When the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction for a claim is based on the existence of a federal question, additional claims against the same party can be heard by the court through the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction if the common-nucleus-of-operative-fact test is met. Claims arise out of the same nucleus of operative fact if they are part of the same case or controversy and should be tried together. However, a district court has discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction (i) over claims that raise new or complex state law issues or that substantially predominate over claims within original federal jurisdiction; (ii) when the claims within the court’s original jurisdiction are dismissed; or (iii) if there are other compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances.