Preclusion Flashcards
Collateral estoppel
Issue preclusion precludes the re-litigation of issues of fact or law if:
(1) The party against whom issue preclusion is sought—or one in privity with the party—was a party to the original action;
(2) The issue sought to be precluded was the same as that involved in the prior action;
(3) The issue was actually litigated in the prior action;
(4) The issue was determined by a valid and binding judgment;
(5) Determination of the issue was essential to the prior judgment.
Offensive non-mutual issue preclusion is permitted—i.e., only 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.
Res judicata
Claim preclusion requires strict mutuality of parties (or their privies)—i.e., the claimant and the defendant must be the same and in the same roles as they were in a prior action.
A final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties from successive litigation of an identical claim in a subsequent action.
Dismissals on motion by the defendant
The presumption is that dismissal of a case by the court upon a defendant’s motion is with prejudice.
Collateral estoppel: privity or successor-in-interest requirement
A employee-employer relationship does not satisfy the privity or successor-in-interest requirement.
Collateral estoppel: discretion of the trial court
Trial courts have broad discretion to determine when issue preclusion should apply. If a plaintiff could easily have joined in the earlier action, a trial judge should not allow use of offensive collateral estoppel.
The rule is animated by considerations of judicial efficiency and economy.
Considerations include:
(1) Whether there was a common question of law or fact between the plaintiff’s claim and the prior plaintiff’s claim;
(2) If the court sat in diversity, whether joinder would have destroyed diversity.
Federal common law
Under Semtek, federal common law governs the preclusive effect of a judgment rendered by a federal court sitting in diversity, although generally, federal law on preclusion incorporates the preclusion law of the state in which the federal court sits.
If state law is incompatible with federal interests, federal common law supersedes state preclusion law.
Voluntary dismissal: two-dismissal rule
If a plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed an action based on a claim without court approval, a subsequent voluntary dismissal of an action based on the same claim is a dismissal with prejudice and thus has preclusive effect.
The rule applies regardless of whether one dismissal was in a state court proceeding.
Res judicata: transactional approach
Federal courts apply a transactional approach under which they bar a subsequent claim with respect to:
- all or any part of the transaction,
- or series of connected transactions,
out of which the action arose.
Choice of law
In determining the claim-preclusive effect of a prior federal judgment in an action based on diversity jurisdiction, federal common law requires that the law of the state in which the federal court rendered its judgment be applied.
