Preclusion — Claim (Res Judicata)

MBEMax wiki article — paired with the Civil Procedure question set on mbemax.com.

One-line summary

Claim preclusion (res judicata) bars relitigation of the same claim between the same parties after a valid, final judgment on the merits in the first action — including claims that could and should have been brought in the earlier suit.

Mnemonic

S-V-F-M — Same parties (or privies), Valid judgment, Final, on the Merits — and same claim (transactional test).

Picture a judge closing a file drawer: one valid, final, merits-based judgment between the same parties = that transaction is closed.

The rule (plain-language)

After a valid, final judgment on the merits, the same parties (and their privies) cannot relitigate any claim arising from the same transaction or occurrence, whether or not it was actually litigated in the first action. The plaintiff is "out" as to everything from that transaction.

Elements (all required)

1. Same claim / same transaction. Majority (Restatement, federal) — any claim arising from the same transaction or occurrence, including theories and remedies not pursued. Minority (older "same cause of action" tests) use narrower "same evidence" or "same rights" formulations.
2. Same parties or privies. Preclusion normally runs only between those who were parties or those in privity (successor in interest, controlling party, bound by representation).
3. Valid judgment. Court had jurisdiction and provided adequate procedure.
4. Final. No further action to be taken; often requires exhaustion of appellate review for purposes of cross-system preclusion.
5. On the merits. Rule 41(b) federal default: involuntary dismissal operates as on the merits unless for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join a necessary party. State courts vary.

Privity — who else is bound?

• Successive owners / assignees in property actions.
• Corporation and closely held officer/shareholder.
• Representative parties — trustee / beneficiary.
• Class representatives and class members (if adequate representation).
• Persons in control of the litigation.

Non-party preclusion is generally disfavored (Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008)); strangers retain their day in court.

Federal exceptions to Rule 41(b) default

Dismissals NOT on the merits (no claim preclusion):

• Lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
• Lack of personal jurisdiction.
• Improper venue.
• Failure to join a required party under Rule 19.
• Voluntary dismissal.

Counterclaim effect

• Compulsory counterclaim (Rule 13(a)) not asserted — barred in later action.
• Permissive counterclaim (Rule 13(b)) not asserted — not barred; may be brought later.

NCBE loves to test

• Transactional test. Federal and majority states use transaction-or-occurrence test. Even new legal theories and new damages from the same event are barred.
• Default judgments and on-the-merits. Default judgment is on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes (but unavailable for issue preclusion on any issue not actually litigated).
• Privity vs. strangers. A person who was not a party and not in privity keeps her day in court.
• Claim preclusion vs. merger and bar. Merger = plaintiff won; judgment merges the claim. Bar = plaintiff lost; prior loss bars relitigation.
• Federal-state preclusion. Federal court must give a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect the rendering state would give it (28 U.S.C. § 1738).
• Compulsory counterclaim waiver. A defendant who doesn't assert a Rule 13(a) claim loses it.
• Judgments procured by fraud, collusion, or lack of due process — may be collaterally attacked; no preclusion.

Fast hypos

Hypo 1. P sues D for negligence arising from a car accident and loses on the merits. P then sues D for battery arising from the same collision on a theory that D acted intentionally. Claim preclusion bars the second suit — same transaction.

Hypo 2. P sues D in federal court; court dismisses for lack of personal jurisdiction. P sues again in a proper court. No claim preclusion — dismissal not on the merits.

Hypo 3. D owed P on a car-purchase contract. P sues D. D fails to assert a set-off claim for defective delivery. Compulsory counterclaim (if same transaction) — D's claim is barred.

Hypo 4. P sues Manufacturer for defective product and loses. P then sues Retailer on strict liability for same product. Privity analysis — often not sufficient privity between manufacturer and retailer for claim preclusion; but issue preclusion may apply depending on issues decided.

Case anchors

• Federated Department Stores v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (1981) — strict approach to claim preclusion even where intervening law change.
• Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) — narrow limits on non-party preclusion.
• Semtek International v. Lockheed Martin, 531 U.S. 497 (2001) — federal common law governs preclusive effect of federal diversity judgments.
• Migra v. Warren City School District, 465 U.S. 75 (1984) — § 1738 applies to § 1983 claims.
• Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (1980) — state-court judgments preclude federal § 1983 litigants.

See also

• Preclusion — Issue
• Summary Judgment
• Discovery
• Erie Doctrine

Sources

Restatement (Second) of Judgments §§ 17–26, 27–28, 41; Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a), 13(b), 41(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1738; Federated Department Stores v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394 (1981); Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008); Semtek International v. Lockheed Martin, 531 U.S. 497 (2001).