Res Judicata Flashcards
1
Q
Res Judicata
A
- prevents a plaintiff from litigating successive suits against the same defendant arising from the same event (also can’t litigate against privies)
- a.k.a. claim preclusion
2
Q
Reasons for Res Judicata
A
- don’t want to waste scarce judicial resources
- repetition would be unfair to harassed defendant
- don’t want plaintiff to keep spinning litigation roulette wheel until gets sympathetic jury
- otherwise would be risking inconsistent results from same facts + same evidence -> destabilizes faith in system
- finality allows for repose -> once matter litigated, it is settled, + parties must deal + adjust behavior accordingly
3
Q
Claim Preclusion and Mistakes
A
- your claim is precluded even if we know the prior decision was wrong -> appeals process is the place to remedy such mistakes, can’t just relitigate
4
Q
Claim Preclusion and Events
A
- pls required to assert all matters arising out of same incident or transaction + against same party in one lawsuit
- if not same transaction/event, can join under Rule 18 but don’t need to
5
Q
Key Time Frames Relevant to Claim Preclusion
A
- initial planning - pl’s counsel must be sure to include all matters that might be considered part of same claim against def in original complaint (don’t want to risk future preclusion)
- once final judgment entered in Case 1, subsequent litigation between same parties may require determination of whether Case 2 represents impermissible splitting
6
Q
Example w/ Ten-Year Contract
A
- breach in yr seven represents distinct claim from equivalent breach in yr 3 (technically the breaches are different + support different claims)
- But if def had originally raised defense to the yr 3 claim that the contract was invalid, there would be issue preclusion in second suit on this defense (claim is distinct, but this particular issue has already been litigated)
7
Q
Elements Required for Claim Preclusion
A
- a prior suit that proceeded to final valid judgment on the merits
- present suit arise out of the same claim as the prior suit
- parties in both suits are the same, or in privity
8
Q
Merger
A
- When plaintiff prevails in earlier suit, everything within the scope of that claim merges into that judgment
9
Q
Bar
A
- when defendant prevails in earlier suit, everything within the scope of that claim is barred
10
Q
Evaluating Same Claim
A
- same claim = claims arising out of the same transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the first action arose
11
Q
How to Evaluate Same Claim
A
- whether the facts are related in time, space, origin or motion
- whether the facts form a convenient trial unit
- whether treatment as a unit conforms to parties’ expectations or business understanding or usage
12
Q
Claim Preclusion and Substantive Theories of Law
A
- being able to claim relief under a new legal theory does not mean new claim - still the same as long as same transaction or series of transactions
13
Q
Transaction for Purposes of Claim Preclusion
A
- used in a broad sense - generally connotes natural grouping or common nucleus of operative facts
- can still qualify as same transaction if different harms, substantive theories, + measures or kinds of relief
- Note that judgment based on harm of the act usually prevents pl from maintaining another action for all the harms not include in the first action (ex w/ disease and later harm)
14
Q
Car Carriers v. Ford Motor Co.
A
- Car Carriers alleges Ford + alleged co-conspirators entered into contracts + continuing combinations designed to restrain trade in business of providing haulaway transportation for new Ford cars
- bring initial suit w/ six counts (1 federal Sherman Antitrust, five state) → district court dismisses b/c pls didn’t suffer type of harm antitrust act is designed to recompense → dismissed federal claim w/ prejudice
- Pls try to bring new suit under Rico Act → gets shut down under res judicata b/c same transaction/series of transactions in prior case
15
Q
Car Carriers - Takeaway
A
- efficiency rationale of finality doctrine
- pragmatic transactional definition of “same claim” avoids consequences of Car Carriers’ proposed narrow formulation (in which new claim even if same fact pattern as long as different legal theory) + consistent w/ liberal rules of joinder in modern practice
16
Q
Res Judicata and New Facts
A
- Comes up w/ Car Carriers → they say court should allow new claim b/c they’ve discovered new facts
- Court says no → says they should’ve done their legal homework the first time around
17
Q
Single Injury/Single Recovery Rule
A
- idea that if you develop one disease from something then develop a second more serious disease after you’ve already sued + recovered, you can’t sue again
- once the injury results, there’s only one tort, not series of torts for each resultant harm
- cause of action would include diseases that develop + will in probability develop - plaintiff can present evidence showing that subsequent harm is likely to develop
18
Q
What constitutes final valid judgment on the merits?
A
- final valid judgment for def doesn’t bar further action by pl when judgment = a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or nonjoinder or misjoinder of parties
- 12b6 usually counts for preclusive effect
- usually deals w/ substantive validity of pl’s claim
19
Q
Taylor v. Sturgell - Facts
A
- suit involving the antique airplane enthusiast - he tries to get FOIA request, gets denied, + friend then files very similar suit asking for same records less than a month later
- Friend represented by same lawyer, asked for precisely the same records, was asked to help restore the plane, + Herrick gave him docs from original suit
- But no evidence Taylor controlled, financed, participated in, or had notice of original suit
20
Q
Taylor v. Sturgell - Holding
A
- SCOTUS rejects possibility of “virtual representation” for privity
- Emphasizes that presumption against nonparty preclusion should have very few + strictly limited exceptions
21
Q
Taylor v. Sturgell - Exceptions to General Principle Against Nonparty Preclusion
A
- Nonparty agrees beforehand to be bound by determination of issues in an action between others
- pre-existing substantive legal relationships justify nonparty preclusion (largely deals w/ property - bailor + bailee, assignor + assignee)
- circumstances in which nonparty bound by judgment b/c adequately represented by someone w/ same interests who was party to initial suit (class actions)
- nonparty has assumed control over litigation in which judgment rendered
- special statutory scheme may expressly foreclose successive litigation by nonparties (provided otherwise consistent w/ due process)
22
Q
Res Judicata and TwIqbal
A
- must bring or lose claim b/c of issue preclusion
- but TwIqbal means you need to make sure you have enough facts to plausibly suggest first - complexity of balancing pleading standard against need to bring all claims at once
- Might run into issue of related claims w/ different factual content required, some plausible, some not
- Need to balance both of these things at point of initiation of lawsuit
23
Q
Res Judicata and Efficiency
A
- Assumption that we have already provided the best procedure once - doing this over won’t actually change the result (we can’t improve on prior litigation, + would mean diminishing attention to new claims)
- We’ve already done our best to get it right, so no need to do it over again
24
Q
Res Judicata + Rule of Law
A
- Res judicata key to rule of law
- purpose to litigation - legal system supposed to provide a clear answer - we want to be able to rely on this
- A good system of dispute resolution ought to resolve the dispute
25
Res Judicata and Full Faith and Credit
* State court of one state must give the judgment of another state the same preclusive effect it would have in the rendering state (also applies fed to state and vice versa)
* Need to see how the original court would treat the preclusive effect
* Semtek
