Res Judicata

Question 1

Res Judicata

Answer 1

• 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

Question 2

Reasons for Res Judicata

Answer 2

• 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

Question 3

Claim Preclusion and Mistakes

Answer 3

• 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

Question 4

Claim Preclusion and Events

Answer 4

• 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

Question 5

Key Time Frames Relevant to Claim Preclusion

Answer 5

• 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

Question 6

Example w/ Ten-Year Contract

Answer 6

• 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)

Question 7

Elements Required for Claim Preclusion

Answer 7

• 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

Question 8

Merger

Answer 8

• When plaintiff prevails in earlier suit, everything within the scope of that claim merges into that judgment

Question 9

Bar

Answer 9

• when defendant prevails in earlier suit, everything within the scope of that claim is barred

Question 10

Evaluating Same Claim

Answer 10

• same claim = claims arising out of the same transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the first action arose

Question 11

How to Evaluate Same Claim

Answer 11

• 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

Question 12

Claim Preclusion and Substantive Theories of Law

Answer 12

• 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

Question 13

Transaction for Purposes of Claim Preclusion

Answer 13

• 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)

Question 14

Car Carriers v. Ford Motor Co.

Answer 14

• 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

Question 15

Car Carriers - Takeaway

Answer 15

• 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

Question 16

Res Judicata and New Facts

Answer 16

• 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

Question 17

Single Injury/Single Recovery Rule

Answer 17

• 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

Question 18

What constitutes final valid judgment on the merits?

Answer 18

• 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

Question 19

Taylor v. Sturgell - Facts

Answer 19

• 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

Question 20

Taylor v. Sturgell - Holding

Answer 20

• SCOTUS rejects possibility of “virtual representation” for privity
• Emphasizes that presumption against nonparty preclusion should have very few + strictly limited exceptions

Question 21

Taylor v. Sturgell - Exceptions to General Principle Against Nonparty Preclusion

Answer 21

• 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)

Question 22

Res Judicata and TwIqbal

Answer 22

• 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

Question 23

Res Judicata and Efficiency

Answer 23

• 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

Question 24

Res Judicata + Rule of Law

Answer 24

• 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

Question 25

Res Judicata and Full Faith and Credit

Answer 25

• 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