Preclusion

Question 1

Res Judicata General Rule

Answer 1

Claim Preclusion
one chance to seek a remedy or remedies as a result of a particular transaction or series of transactions.

Question 2

Split Claim

Answer 2

You cannot generally “split” your claim and file successive lawsuits against the same party about the same transaction or series of transactions.

Question 3

Requirements for res judicata

Answer 3

Same “claim”
Same parties (rare exceptions)
Valid final judgment
“On the merits”

Question 4

§ 24 Dimensions of “Claim” for Purposes of Merger or Bar

Answer 4

• (1) When a valid and final judgment rendered in an action extinguishes the plaintiff’s claim pursuant to the rules of merger or bar (see §§ 18, 19), the claim extinguished includes all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action arose.
• (2) What factual grouping constitutes a “transaction”, and what groupings constitute a “series”, are to be determined pragmatically, giving weight to such considerations as whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties’ expectations or business understanding or usage.

Question 5

§ 25 Exemplifications of General Rule Concerning Splitting

Answer 5

• The rule of § 24 applies to extinguish a claim by the plaintiff against the defendant even though the plaintiff is prepared in the second action

(1) To present evidence or grounds or theories of the case not presented in the first action, or

(2) To seek remedies or forms of relief not demanded in the first action.

Question 6

§ 26 Exceptions to the General Rule Concerning Splitting

Answer 6

• (1) When any of the following circumstances exists, the general rule of § 24 does not apply to extinguish the claim, and part or all of the claim subsists as a possible basis for a second action by the plaintiff against the defendant:
  o …
  o (c) The plaintiff was unable to rely on a certain theory of the case or to seek a certain remedy or form of relief in the first action because of the limitations on the subject matter jurisdiction of the courts or restrictions on their authority to entertain multiple theories or demands for multiple remedies or forms of relief in a single action, and the plaintiff desires in the second action to rely on that theory or to seek that remedy or form of relief; ….

Question 7

§ 27 Issue Preclusion

Answer 7

General Rule
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

Question 8

Exceptions to 27 & 28

Answer 8

The circumstances to which considerations should be given include those enumerated in § 28 and also whether…(4) The determination relied on as preclusive was itself inconsistent with another determination of the same issue….(8) Other compelling circumstances make it appropriate that the party be permitted to relitigate the issue.