Preclusion, Issue and Claim Preclusion

Question 1

What is preclusion

Answer 1

1. Basically: if there has been an earlier case, watch for these issues, which concern the preclusive effect of a prior judgment on the merits. The question is whether a judgment already entered (Case 1) precludes litigation of any matters in another case (Case 2).
   a. If C1 and C2 are in different judicial systems (e.g. state and federal), the court in C2 applies the preclusion law of the judicial system that decided C1.

Question 2

Claim preclusion

Answer 2

(Res Judicata). – you only get to sue on a claim once. only get one case in which to vindicate all rights to relief for that claim.

Summary: final, valid judgment on the merits, BOTH parties must be the same or in privity, and the new action must arise out of the same T/O

3 Requirements

a. C1 and C2 were brought by the same claimant against the same ∆.
b. C1 ended in a valid final judgment on the merits. Any judgment is on the merits unless based on
i. jdxn, venue or indispensible parties.
ii. true even if there was no adjudication in C1.
c. C1 and C2 assert the same claim. (hardest part)
i. majority view including federal law: a claim is any right to relief arising from same T/O.
ii. minority view: separate claims for property damage and personal injury because different primary rights.

d. terminology:
i. if claimant won C1, claim preclusion is merger
ii. if claimant lost C2, claim preclusion is “bar”

Question 3

Issue preclusion (aka collateral estoppel)

Answer 3

but if issue preclusion applies, we deem an issue from c1established in C2.

requirements

• same issue
• issue was essential to judgment
• issue was actually litigated and determined. dismissal insufficient, unlike for claim preclusion
• C1 ended in a valid final judgment on the merits
• it’s being used AGAINST a party or someone in privity with a party in C1. privity includes unnamed ppl in class action.

WHO CAN ASSERT ISSUE PRECLUSION
- parties to the original case and those in privity with them

• non-parties if:
  NONMUTUAL DEFENSIVE ISSUE PRECLUSION
• party using issue preclusion was not a party in the first case (non-mutual) and is a ∆ in the later case. i.e. ∆ is trying to use something the π admitted n past case (for ex negligence in a case against a different ∆)
• allowed if πhad full chance to litigate in C1.

NONMUTUAL OFFENSIVE PRECLUSION

• party using issue preclusion was not a party in the first case and is a π in the later case. for ex. you’re a πand you want to introduce evidence that ∆ admitted negligence in a past case.
• permissible in federal court if fair: factors
• full and fair opportunity to litigate in the first case, strong incentive to do so, non-party πcould not have joined easily in the first case, there are no inconsistent findings on the issue.
• not permissible in state courts