Verdicts and Judgments Flashcards
The federal courts of appeals have jurisdiction over appeals from
final judgments of the district courts.
A final judgment is
a decision by the court on the merits that leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.
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.
Res Judicata is also known as
CLAIM PRECLUSION and MERGER (called this if P won in first suit) and BAR (if P lost in first suit)
To bar a claim under res judicata:
The original claim must have resulted in a valid final judgment on the merits;
The original and later-filed causes of action must be sufficiently identical (i.e., related to the same transaction or occurrence);
AND
The claimant and the defendant must be the same (and in the same roles) in both the original and later-filed action, or privity exists between the parties in the original and later-filed action.
NOTE. Res Judicata is limited to the parties and their privies; thus, a similar action by a different party would NOT be barred under res judicata.
How is “Claim” defined?
The guts of merger and bar turn on how
“claim” is defined. P’s “claim” in Suit 1 is deemed to include all rights of P to get any form of relief from D with respect to the transaction, or series of connected transactions, that gave rise to P’s Suit 1 complaint.
Thus: claim preclusion includes all relief P ACTUALLY sought or MIGHT HAVE sought related to the transaction(s).
Note: the definition of a “claim” is relatively broad (and can thus include more than the particular relief P sought vs. D in Suit 1), claim preclusion can bind P much more extensively than issue preclusion.
Strangers to original claim who are not privies, can claim preclusion be used?
NO.
Example: When cars driven by D1 and D2 collide, they both spin out of control and both hit a car driven by P. In Suit 1, P sues D1 (only) in State A state court, claiming that D1’s negligent driving was the “but for” cause of P’s injuries. P is awarded $50,000. Then, in Suit 2, P sues D2 (only) in that same State A court, claiming that D2’s negligent driving was also a “but for” cause of P’s injuries. D2 will not be able to use claim preclusion to prevent P’s suit against D2 from going forward; since D2 was a stranger to Suit 1, P’s claim against D2 is not “merged into” the Suit 1 judgment in favor of P. And that’s true even though both claims by P arise out of the same underlying transaction (the three-way collision) and even though State A’s joinder rules would have permitted P to sue both D1 and D2 in the same suit.
What about claim preclusion and privies, how does it work and what is a common example?
If parties in original suit were privies (fiduciaries of one another, emloyer, etc.), then can use claim preclusion.
Most tested area for privies is VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Example: P, a pedestrian, is injured when she is hit by a truck owned by D1 and driven by D2, who is working as D1’s employee at the time of the accident. P sues D2 (only) in Suit 1, for having driven negligently, and seeks $50,000 in damages for her medical expenses. The jury finds in favor of P and awards her $40,000, though P is unable to collect from D2, who is indigent. P now, in Suit 2, sues D1 for $10,000 representing the wages she lost when she was injured (a category of damages that does not overlap with those P sought from D2); P’s theory is that D1 is vicariously liable for any negligence committed by D2 under respondeat superior.
P’s claim against D1 is “merged into” her claim against D2; therefore, she cannot recover for the lost profits. That’s so because D1 and D2 are “privies” (since any liability on D1’s part is based solely on D1’s vicarious liability for D2’s tortious conduct as employee), so that D1 will be treated as if he had been a party to Suit 1. Therefore, just as P’s claim for lost profits would be forfeited if Suit 2 were against D2 (i.e., the lost-profits claim would be deemed “merged into” the medical- expenses claim), so that lost-profits claim is forfeited as against D1. (But P could still seek to enforce the $40,000 medical- expenses judgment against D1 — it’s only the never-litigated lost-profits claim which, because it arose out of the same transaction as the medical-expenses claim, should have been litigated in the suit against D2, and is therefore forfeited by P for purposes of the suit against D1.)
Note the wrinkle that can still recover from original claim from D2 employer. Just can’t sue on the never-litigated claim arising out of same transaction.
Collateral estoppel
AKA issue preclusion, “When an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, the determination is conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties, whether on the same or a different claim.”
To bar an issue under collateral estoppel:
The issue sought to be precluded must be the same as that involved in the prior action (i.e., the facts relevant to the particular issue and the applicable law must be identical);
The issue must have been actually litigated in the prior action;
The issue must have been determined by a valid final judgment on the merits;
AND
The determination of the issue must have been essential to the prior judgment.
Contexts issue preclusion applies to
to findings of “fact,” to conclusions of law, and to conclusion about whether and how the law applies to the facts.
Can party use issue preclusion when the parties are not the same as in the previous case (aka nonmutual collateral estoppel)?
Yes, but court will undertake a case-by-case analysis to decide whether on balance preclusion is appropriate.
In determining whether such preclusion should be permitted, the court undertakes a case-by-case analysis and looks to such factors as whether the party who is to be precluded had a full and fair opportunity to resolve the issue; whether the party making use of preclusion strategically sat out the first lawsuit; whether the party to be precluded was a defendant or plaintiff in t he prior lawsuit; whether the party to be precluded had incentives in the first lawsuit to litigate the issue fully; and whether the second lawsuit was foreseeable at the time of the first suit. Preclusion will be denied when its application will distort decision of the issues that remain open in the case, create juror confusion, or create inefficiency.
As to the “actually litigated” element of issue preclusion, does an alford plea work?
NO.
Where the defendant is permitted to plead guilty while maintaining his innocence of some aspect of the crime—a so-called “Alford plea”—the vast majority of courts have held that a fact denied by the defendant during the course of the allocution should not be deemed to have been “actually litigated,” and therefore not subject to later issue preclusion.
Example of issue preclusion “essential to judgment” requirement not satisfied:
P owns a particular patent for use in perfume dispensers. In 2014, D sells a perfume dispenser, the “Atomizer,” that P contends violates P’s patent. In 2015, in Suit 1, P sues D in federal court for patent infringement. D defends on 2 grounds: (1) that P’s patent is invalid; and (2) that even if the patent were valid, the Atomizer doesn’t infringe that patent. The judge (sitting without a jury), finds for D, saying in her opinion, “First, I find that P’s patent is invalid. But second, I find that even if the patent were valid, the Atomizer doesn’t infringe on the patent.” In 2016, D starts to sell a new dispenser, the “Nebulizer.” Later that year, in Suit 2, P sues D again, claiming that the Nebulizer violates the same patent.
D would of course like to invoke issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) to prevent P from claiming, in Suit 2, that the patent is valid, since the judge so held in Suit 1. But D won’t be entitled to such a ruling. That’s because the judgment in Suit 1 would have been exactly the same (D wins) whether the judge there found that the patent was valid or that it was invalid; in other words, the finding as to the patent’s validity does not meet the requirement of having been “essential to the [first] judgment.” And that’s true even though the other two requirements for collateral estoppel — that the patent’s validity was “actually litigated” and was “actually determined” in the prior suit – were satisfied.
A default judgment will have a preclusive effect if
the court had valid personal and subject matter jurisdiction.
States vary as to the extent of preclusion a default judgment has, but generally, a party is barred from asserting defenses or compulsory counterclaims that could have been raised in that original action.
