1. Mon., Nov. 19

2. preclusion claim preclusion issue preclusion

3. res judicata collateral estoppel

4. claim preclusion - when P sues D and it comes to a final valid judgment on the merits claim preclusion bars P from subsequently bringing suit on actions that P did bring or should have brought in the earlier suit

5. P sues D in California state court for negligence in connection with a car accident P loses – the jury finds that D was not negligent judgment for D P sues D in California state court for negligence in connection with the same car accident, hoping the jury will get things right this time

6. defendant preclusion

7. P sues D in California state court for negligence in connection with a car accident P wins – the jury finds that D was negligent and awards P $100,000 $100,000 in D’s bank account is attached by the court and given to P D sues P in California state court to get the $100,000 wrongfully taken from him

8. claim preclusion bars litigation of actions that should have been brought compulsory joinder rule

9.  P sues D in California state court for breach of a contract to build D a house P built the house but D won’t pay P loses – the jury finds that there was no consideration and so no contract judgment for D P then sues D in California state court for quantum meruit – that is, for the fair market value of the work he performed

10. defendant preclusion bars litigation of defenses that should have been brought

11. - P sues D for under state law for violating a racially restrictive covenant - D loses and P is given a judgment of $100,000, which is executed - D then realizes that racially restrictive covenants are unconstitutional - D brings suit against P for restitution of the $100,000

12. distinguish defendant preclusion from compulsory counterclaim rule

13. P sues D in California state court for negligence in connection with a car accident P wins – the jury finds that D was negligent and awards P $100,000 D sues P in California state court for his damages in the accident

14. - P sues D for breaching a contract requiring D to give P coal every winter - in the suit D challenges the validity of the contract - the court determines the contract to be valid - P wins damages from D - the next winter, D breaches again - P once again sues D for breach - is P claim precluded? - D once again challenges the validity of the contract - anything P can do?

15. issue preclusion

16. issue preclusion if a party fully and fairly litigated an issue in an earlier case he can (with certain exceptions) be barred from relitigating the same issue in subsequent proceedings

17. requirements for claim preclusion

18. there must be: a final judgment

19. - P sues D concerning personal injuries in connection with a car accident - P loses, appeals - while actions is on appeal, P sues D concerning property damage in connection with the accident

20. - P sues D concerning personal injuries in connection with a car accident - while P’s first suit is going on, P also sues D concerning property damage in connection with the accident

21. claim splitting or prior action pending

22. - P sues D concerning a transaction - it comes to a judgment - P then sues D concerning the same action - claim precluded - P sues D concerning an action. - while the first action is going, P sues D concerning the same transaction - one of them comes to judgment, without D having brought up claim splitting - result?

23. the judgment must be: valid

24. P sues D in federal court in NY D appears there is no PJ over D but no one notices this fact judgment for P P then brings a separate suit in state court in Cal. to enforce the judgment can D challenge the earlier judgment on the grounds that there was no PJ?

25. P sues D in federal court in NY D appears there is no SMJ, but no one notices this fact P then brings a separate suit in state court in Cal. to enforce the judgment can D challenge the earlier judgment on the grounds that there was no SMJ?

26. P sues D in federal court in connection with an accident there is no SMJ or PJ D defaults P then tries to sue D on the judgment in state court can D challenge the judgment as invalid?

27. the judgment must be: on the merits

28. - P sues D for intentional infliction of emotional distress - D gets the action dismissed for failure to state a claim (P did not allege requisite intent) - P then sues D for negligent infliction of emotional distress concerning the same transaction

29. default judgment on the merits?

30. P sues D for negligence asking for compensation for bodily injuries D defaults and P is issued a default judgment for $100K P then sues D for property damages concerning the same accident D brings an action against P for restitution of the $100K

31. § 20. Judgment For Defendant—Exceptions To The General Rule Of Bar (1) A personal judgment for the defendant, although valid and final, does not bar another action by the plaintiff on the same claim: (a) When the judgment is one of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, for improper venue, or for nonjoinder or misjoinder of parties; or (b) When the plaintiff agrees to or elects a nonsuit (or voluntary dismissal) without prejudice or the court directs that the plaintiff be nonsuited (or that the action be otherwise dismissed) without prejudice; or (c) When by statute or rule of court the judgment does not operate as a bar to another action on the same claim, or does not so operate unless the court specifies, and no such specification is made.

32. (2) A valid and final personal judgment for the defendant, which rests on the prematurity of the action or on the plaintiff's failure to satisfy a precondition to suit, does not bar another action by the plaintiff instituted after the claim has matured, or the precondition has been satisfied, unless a second action is precluded by operation of the substantive law.

33. SMJ. PJ. venue. failure to join a necessary party
SMJ? PJ? venue? failure to join a necessary party? failure to state a claim? Twiqbal?

34. - statute of limitations?

35. tendency to treat a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds (even a “procedural” one) as having preclusive effect

36. if a final valid judgment on the merits then… if judgment is for P, P’s claim is merged in the judgment (no new causes of action about the transaction allowed) if judgment is for D, P’s claim is extinguished (no new causes of action about the transaction allowed)

37. why claim preclusion?

38. scope of a claim

39. RIVER PARK, INC. v. CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK (Ill. 1998)

40. interjurisdictional claim preclusion

41. - P sues D in state court in Georgia for breach of contract - Georgia preclusion law allows separate suits in law and equity - judgment for D, there was no contract - P then sues D in state court in California for quantum meruit - California preclusion law does not allow separate suits in law and equity

42. Art IV, § 1. Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

43. - P sues D in federal court in Illinois under federal civil rights law - federal law uses the transaction approach - judgment for D - P then sues D in state court in Illinois under Illinois law - which preclusion law applies?

44. - P sues D in federal court in Georgia under Georgia state law for breach of contract - Georgia preclusion law allows separate suits in law and equity - judgment for D, there was no contract - P then sues D in state court in California for quantum meruit - California uses the evidence approach - which preclusion law to use? federal? Georgia? California?

45. evidence test

46. primary rights test

47. Rest. (2d) of Judgments § 24. Dimensions Of “Claim” For Purposes Of Merger Or Bar—General Rule Concerning “Splitting” (1) When a valid and final judgment rendered in an action extinguishes the plaintiff's claim pursuant to the rules of merger or bar 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.

48. P sues D for breach of contract – the product sent to P was defective P asks for damages and gets a judgment may P sue later for the amount that D overcharged P for the product?

49. claim preclusion and changes in the law

50. - P sues D (a municipality) for employment discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of judgment for P with injunctive relief, but no compensatory damages, since it was held they are not available under Title VII - subsequently the Supreme Court decides that compensatory damages are available against municipalities under 42 USC P sues D under 1983 for compensatory damages for the past employment discrimination - claim precluded?

51. P sues D Railroad alleging that the conductor was negligent in starting the car while P was disembarking and that as a result P broke his arm after judgment for P, P brings a new action against D alleging that after disembarking from the car he fell into a trench negligently left by D beside the road and broke his leg

52. B owes A $500 on an obligation that matured on February 1 A visits B on June 1 and requests payment, whereupon B commits an unprovoked assault upon A A sues B on the debt and recovers may A maintain a second action against B based on the assault?

53. D buys goods at P store on credit during January, February and March in April P sues D for the debt incurred in January may P later sues for the debt incurred on February or March

54. A pays state income taxes for the years 2011 and 2012 and state property tax for the year in 2014 A sues state for overpayment of income taxes for 2011

55. A brings an action against B in federal court for the purchase price of a boiler sold by A to B. B defends on the sole ground that the price has been paid, and judgment is given to A. B subsequently sues A for breach of warranty because the boiler was defective and exploded, causing damage to B. The explosion happened before A’s suit.