#11018 - Preclusion - Civil Procedure

Rule 8(c): res judicata 4 elements

1. The claim in the second action must be the same as that litigated in the first.

   1. Including claims that could have been brought in the first lawsuit

   2. Same transaction test (used by the federal courts and many state courts): parties are barred from litigating in a second lawsuit any further claims that arise from the same transaction in the first lawsuit.

   3. Same evidence test (some states): One suit precludes a second where the parties and the cause of action are identical. Causes of action are identical where the evidence necessary to sustain a second verdict would sustain the first.

2. The parties must be the same

   1. Situations where a nonparty will be bound by a judgment

      1. agreement by the parties to be bound by a prior action

      2. preexisting substantive legal relationship (such as buyer and seller of property)

      3. adequate representation by someone with the same interests who was a party (such as trustees, guardians, and other fiduciaries)

      4. a party assuming control over prior litigation

      5. party who loses an individual suit then suing again, this time as the representative of a class

      6. special statutory schemes such as bankruptcy and probate proceedings, provided those proceedings comport with due process

3. The judgment rendered in the first action must be final

4. The judgment must have been rendered on the merits of the case

   1. Not on the merits: dismissals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, failure to join a party (Rule 41(b))

   2. Preclusion effect: default judgment; dismissal for failure to prosecute (P files an action and does not pursue it); summary judgment; (for most courts) dismissal for failure to state a claim

Rationale for res judicata

1. Respect for the first court’s authority

2. The parties’ reliance on the settled rights

3. The need to conserve judicial resources

4. Prevents inconsistency

5. More efficient

6. Prevent harassment

Intersystem claim: the full faith and credit statute requires a federal court to give a state court judgment the same preclusive effect such judgment would have in a state court. And vice versa. 28 U.S.C. §1738

Collateral estoppel 4 elements

1. The issue to be precluded in the second action must be the same as that litigated in the first

   1. Different burden of proof may be different issues: prevailing the civil lawsuit does not mean that the issue will be precluded in a criminal lawsuit, because in a civil lawsuit the burden of proof is a preponderance of evidence, whereas in a criminal lawsuit it’s beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. It must have been actually litigated in the first action

3. It must have been actually decided in the first action by the court or jury

   1. Negligence/ contrib example: not clear which one is actually decided

   2. Cases with multiple defenses: not clear which defense helps win the case.

4. The decision of the issue in the first action must have been necessary/ essential to reach the judgment rendered in the first action (alternative grounds for decision - distinguish: either one is sufficient to support result, or both)

   1. If a judgment of a court of first instance is based on determinations of two issues, either of which standing independently would be sufficient to support the result, the judgment is not conclusive with respect to either issue standing alone.

      1. If only one issue is sufficient to support the result, only that issue has the preclusion effect, not the other.

   2. If a judgment rendered by a court of first instance is reversed by the appellate court and a final judgment is entered by the appellate court (or by the court of first instance in pursuance of the mandate of the appellate court), this latter judgment is conclusive between the parties.

   3. If the judgment of the court of first instance was based on a determination of two issues, either of which standing independently would be sufficient to support the result, and the appellate court upholds both of these determinations as...