Post Post TriaL Flashcards
(9 cards)
What is RES JUDICATA?
Res judicata (Claim Preclusion) precludes re-litigation of a claim that has already been decided in prior litigation between the same parties as long as:
- It is the same claim
- Sama parties in same configuration
- Valid and Final Judgment on the Merits
- Actually, litigated or could have been litigated.
What does it mean to have [ THE SAME CLAIM ] On Res Judicata?
♦ Federal: The second claim is the same claim if it arises out of the same transaction or occurrence as the claim from the previous lawsuit. Most states use this rule (Use this rule on MBE. But see below, CA is different.).
● When P wins claim #1 –P loses the ability to seek different/additional recovery on the same claim. Should have brought it all the first time.
- Ex#1: P wins first negligence claim for property damage. Then brings suit for personal injury regarding the same negligence claim. The defendant will bar the 2ndclaim under Res Judicata.
♦ California: California recognizes the Primary Rights Theory which stipulates that a single claim can contain multiple rights (one car accident but right to property damages is separate from right to personal injury). Under CA law, the second claim is the same claim, only if it is with regards to the same primary right litigated in the previous lawsuit.
●Note: This makes it harder for the same claim element to be met, making it harder to win a motion for claim preclusion in CA.
♦ Note: After doing MBE and reviewing all essays, Res Judicata has only been granted when used defensively.
♦ Note: When sitting in federal court under diversity jurisdiction, look out for choice of law issues. Courts view issue and claim preclusion rules as substantive law. See below for choice of law and erie doctrine
What does it mean to have [ THE SAME PARTIES IN SAME CONFIGURATION ] On Res Judicata?
Claim preclusion can only be used when the claim involves the same parties (or privy) and in the same configuration as the previous lawsuit.
●Privity: A new party has privity if they have a sufficient legal relationship with the original party that they replaced. As seen from practice questions: A new party is in privity via: 1) Grantor/Grantee relationship or 2) Employer/Employee relationship.
Same configuration means: It cannot be P vs. D in case I and D vs. P in case 2
What does it mean to have [ VALID AND FINAL UDGMENT ON THE MERITS ] On Res Judicata?
♦ Federal: A judgment is final when the judgment is rendered.
♦ California: A judgment is final when the appeals have concluded.
♦ Note: Judgments not on the merits include: dismissed for failure to join a party, failure to state a claim, jurisdiction defects, dismissal without prejudice, etc.
♦ Note: Judgment on the merits include: default judgment, involuntary dismissal, any dismissal with prejudice, etc.
What does it mean to have [ ACTUALLY LITIGATED OR COULD HAVE BEEN LITIGATED ] On Res Judicata?
Note: This element is not used in all bar selected answers analyzing this issue. Your choice as to include this element or not.
Note on Res Judicata: This motion is rarely granted. Through all our review, we’ve only seen granted when used by the defendant when the plaintiff should have brought all their claims regarding the same incident at once (also seen as merger rule). See hypo #2.
What is COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL?
Collateral Estoppel (issue preclusion) is a doctrine used to prevent a claim or particular issue from being re-litigated (issue of fact or issues of law).
Summary Judgment: A subsequent suit based on the same issue maybe completely barred via a motion for summary judgment.
Partial Summary Judgment: A subsequent suit may be barred from just re-litigating a particular issue via a motion for partial summary judgment.
Note: Collateral Estoppel is tested often for motion for summary judgment as opposed to partial.
What are the elements for COLLATERAL STOPPEL?
(1) SAME EXACT ISSUEAS IN CLAIM #1.
(2) THE ISSUE WAS ESSENTIAL TO THE JUDGMENT OF CLAIM# 1.
● Special Verdict –> means the jury gives the judge their findings on factual issues without stating which party should win. The judge then decides who wins based on the jury’s findings. On MBE questions, when the jury returns a special verdict, it supports this element being met.
● General Verdict –> means the verdict doesn’t identify its specific findings, but just decides which party wins. On MBE questions, when the jury returns a general verdict, issue preclusion is likely not granted.
(3) ACTUALLY LITIGATED IN CLAIM #1. Element fails if the defendant loses the first claim because of default judgment.
(4) VALID AND FINAL JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS.
(5) IT MUST BE USED AGAINST A PARTY (ORPRIVITY) FROM CLAIM # 1.
When does the court allow A party to use issue preclusion?
Even if the elements are met, the court has the discretion on whether to grant collateral estoppel. The court will first consider whether issue preclusion is mutual or non-mutual. The final outcome is then dependent on whether the court adopts the traditional or modern view and how the fairness factors fare. This discretion discussion is very important to discuss on an essay analyzing collateral estoppel.
(1) DEFINITIONS
♦ Mutual Issue Preclusion –> means that collateral estoppel is being used by someone who was a party (or privity) in case #1.
♦ Non-Mutual Issue Preclusion –> means collateral estoppel is being used by someone who was not a party (or privity) in case #1
What is the difference between Traditional and Modern view to analyze COLLATERAL STOPPEL?
Under the TRADITIONAL view, only mutual issue preclusion was allowed. Note: This means that traditionally, collateral estoppel could not be used by a person who wasn’t a party (or privity) in case #1.
Under MODERN VIEW –> some jurisdictions have abolished the mutuality requirement and will allow non-mutual issue preclusion depending on
1) Whether it is used offensively (sword) or defensively (shield), and
2) Consideration of the fairness factors.
● Offensively vs. Defensively
1.Defensively: Collateral estoppel is being used defensively when the party asserting collateral estoppel is the defendant.
Note: Most courts are likely to allow non-mutual claim preclusion to be used defensively.
- Offensively: Collateral estoppel is being used offensively when the party asserting collateral estoppel is the plaintiff.
Note: Some courts are reluctant to allow non-mutual claim preclusion to be used offensively, but CA does allow if fairness considerations are in favor.
Fairness Considerations 1. Did the party against whom the judgment is to be used have a fair opportunity to be heard on the critical issue?
- Would it be unfair or unequitable to allow collateral estoppel?
- Could the new plaintiff have joined the first case?
- Could defendant have foreseen multiple lawsuits?
- Will asserting collateral estoppel result in inconsistent judgments?
- Notes:
a. Unclear as to whether you should list these as elements so make sure you have clear headings for them.
b. One thing to look for is: Claim #1 was insignificant (only for $100) and claim #2 is significant ($1,000,000). This favors no full and fair opportunity which favors no use of collateral estoppel.
c. Unreasonable delay in bringing claim #2 (just wanted to wait to see result from claim #1).
