#11529 - Repose Direct Attack And Preclusion - Civil Procedure

Repose: DIRECT ATTACKS AND PRECLUSION

1. Direct Attacks on Judgment: go back to the court that issued the judgment and ask it to vacate

Rule 60: On motion, court can within a reasonable time, no more than a year, relieve a party from judgment ordered b/c of mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence that could not with reasonable diligence have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under 59(b); fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by opposing party; if the judgment is void; if the judgment has been satisfied or if its based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or vacated; or any other reason that justifies relief

Remittitur: Although he can’t directly reduce damages, a judge can grand a conditional new trial, unless plaintiff aggress to accept a reduced award of $X.

Additur: in state courts, similar process, whereby a state can grant a conditional new trial unless defendant agrees to a higher award. Federal courts cannot use additur, though they can use remittitur.

Kupferman v Consolidate Research

Defendant seeks vacate of judgment for plaintiff based on Rule 60(b), fraud upon the Court. 2^nd Circuit says failure to disclose an instrument which he could reasonably have supposed that his adversary knew of does not constitute “fraud upon the court.” Court denies motion to vacate.

Rozier v Ford Motor Co.

Rosier asked Ford for some cost-benefit analysis it did, which it claimed it didn’t have. Rozier later found it, alleged misrepresentation in not turning it over. Moving party has to show that but for the violation, it would have had a fuller and fairer opportunity to be heard.

Pierce v Cook

Driver who Cook had hired to transport materials got into accident, killed one and injured several. The families sued. He removed to federal court on diversity, but one of the plaintiffs got back into state court b/c a caretaker was from the same state. Federal court plaintiffs lost, in part due to an Oklahoma precedent. State court plaintiffs won when Okla. Sup Ct overturned that precedent. Federal Court plaintiffs who lost moved for rule 60(b)(6) relief based on “extraordinary situation.” Court says that when plaintiffs are forced to litigate in federal court and lose, and other plaintiffs from the same incident are successful in state court, this is an extraordinary situation, and relief under 60(b)(6) is appropriate to accomplish justice.

Policy: Pierce is the exception to the general rule. But in general there’d be too much uncertainty if verdicts could always be overturned, there would be too many of these cases if we allowed new trials any time applicable law changes ex post. Permanence of decisions builds confidence in judicial system.

2. (Preclusion)—as opposed to direct attacks, this is where a second action is brought that would result in a judgment at variance with the result in the first action. Because of full faith and credit clause, preclusion crosses state jurisdictional boundaries.

i. Claim preclusion (formerly res judicata, the hatchet) Once you have brought a claim against a party arising out of a given event, you cannot bring another claim against that party for the same event. Even if the first claim was negligence, and this one is breach of contract, doesn’t matter. This applies to every claim you did raise about that event and every claim you could have made but failed to.

Creates incentive to include any potential claims in initial action.

Restatement of Judgments

§ 17 (p 1158): A judgment is conclusive, in a subsequent action between parties on the same or a different claim, with respect to any issue actually litigated and determined if its determination was essential to that judgment.

§ 24: What 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 and usage.

Conditions for Claim Preclusion:

• Valid Judgment in forum 1

  1. Notice

  2. Subject matter jurisdiction

  3. Personal jurisdiction

• Same parties

• Same claim

Fetter v Beale (SKULL FALLING OUT): plaintiff brought an action for battery and recovered damages for bruised skull. Later, part of his skull came out of his head, as a result of same battery. Tried to bring another action for more damages. Court says plaintiff cannot sue again on the same matter, alleging a new theory, new type of relief, or extension of damages. New claim is merged into old claim, and therefore barred.

Durfee v Duke

Nebraska Supreme Court decided it had subject matter jurisdiction over a parcel of land and that it was in Nebraska. Plaintiff later brought suit in Missouri, claiming Nebraska never had subject matter jurisdiction to decide whose land it was. Missouri Sup Ct says when jurisdictional issues have been “fully and fairly litigated” by the parties and finally determined in the courts of another state, no further inquiry by courts in another state is allowed.

“A judgment is entitled to full faith and credit-even as to questions of jurisdiction-when the second court's inquiry discloses that those questions have been fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in the court which rendered the original judgment.”

Chase: If the claim for the same or similarly-situated land had been brought by someone else not a party to that first suit, it might be pretty persuasive precedent, but it wouldn’t be claim precluded.

Full faith and credit requires every state to give to a judgment at least the preclusive effect which the judgment would be accorded in the state that rendered it.

Maybe Duke could have brought a Rule 60(b) relief claim.

Decision that the land is in Nebraska is a decision of fact, not of law, so it wouldn’t be a stare decisis issue.

Federated Department Stores v Moitie

Antitrust case. Moitie brought damages suit in federal court and case was dismissed. They did not appeal. Then tried to bring claim in state court, under state law. Federated removed to federal court, which dismissed based on res judicata, alleging that state law claims were simply disguised federal claims.

Holding says a review of a decision on matter of law can be dealt with only through appellate review, not through retrial.

Blackmun concurrence says res applies not only to all claims they actually did raise in the initial suit, but also to those that they could have raised, so removal and res judicata were proper.

Stare Decisis: Courts are bound by their own prior decisions on issues of law, unless the prior decision can be distinguished or certain exceptions. Can be vertical (following rules of higher courts) or horizontal (circuit courts should follow the decisions of other panels within the same circuit). For example, in Planned Parenthood v Casey, SCOTUS said the issue entitled to stare.

3. Issue Preclusion (Used to be called collateral estoppel), the scalpel

The issue to be precluded must have been litigated (not just raised or alluded to) in a prior action between the parties. Not only must it be litigated and decided, it must be necessary to the result. Otherwise, you never know whether it was seriously decided and subject to appeal.

Most states have killed mutuality requirement. Now I can invoke issue preclusion offensively or against you for previous claims that you litigated, even if I wasn’t a party (see Parklane).

Restatement of Judgments

§27When 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...