Chapter 13 notes

Page 677 - 682

Res judicata: the subject has been adjudicated

3 elements:

1. existing, valid, final judgement on the merits
2. between the same parties
3. concerning the same claim

Collateral estoppel: precluding relitigation of an issue settled in a prior suit, even if on a different claim

• P sued to recover value of a faulty promissory note (there were 2 notes, but P failed to include both in original action)
• Court granted judgement for P
• later the P filed a second suit seeking to enforce the amount for the second note. The same "economic duress" defense was used

First suit:

• suit for alleged breach of an employment contract
• court granted D's motion for summary judgement
• P granted leave to serve an amended complaint so that he might sue for the value of his service

Second suit:

• in quantum meruit seeking to recover the reasonable value of the services rendered
• held: first suit the D's wrongs were misappropriation of accounts and the proceeds thereof; second suit D's wrongs were acceptance and retention of benefits, without payment in return of fair compensation.
• the two actions involve different rights and wrongs. The requisite elements of proof very materially. The causes of action are different.

This view is criticized for being too narrow and oblivious to important policy considerations.

First suit:

• (1973) P alleged their property had been wrongfully appropriated by a governmental entity without just compensation
• action was dismissed on the merits because P failed to establish a de facto taking.

Second suit:

• (a) (1978) same facts, but with the added averment that the city had taken the property by tax deed in 1977
• (b) also P filed an amended complaint alleging that D had trespassed on the property between 1967 - 1978
• holding claim (a): once a claim is brought to a final conclusion, all other claims arising out of the same transactions or series of transactions are barred, even if based upon different theories or if seeking a different remedy. This issue was brought to a final conclusion, and therefore no other claim can be made on it
• hold (b): P failed to serve timely notice of claim

this is the "transactional approach"

• connotes a natural grouping or common nucleus of facts

• brought suit for personal injuries suffered while an inmate at the Mississippi State Penitentiary
• prior to this suit he was member of a class action seeking relief for inmates from violations of civil rights.
• D asserted P's claims were barred because he could have brought his claims under the class action suit
• HOLD: it would be harsh and improper application of res judicata to hold on the basis of notice sent out in the class action, that P forfeited his rights to personal redress for lack of knowledge of federal law required that injunctive and monetary relief sought in one action

Collateral Estoppel: precludes a party from re-litigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party or those in privity

A party who lacked a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action is excepted from the doctrine's operation.

Cromwell v. County of Sac (page 684)

First action:

• brought on Cromwell's behalf against Sac County for recovery of interest on 25 bond coupons
• judgement for Sac County
• rat: court found the action to be tainted with fraud and illegality.

Second action:

• Cromwell sued upon other bonds and coupons
• lower court agreed with D and held Cromwell's right to recover was estopped by the prior judgement
• the Supreme Court noted the issue was identical for all bonds. But the second suit involved different bonds and coupons than the first, so the question of whether Cromwell had been a bona fide purchaser for value in the second action had not been decided in the first.
• Therefore the payment of value issue was not subject to collateral estoppel and the lower court's ruling was reversed

Ryan v. New York Telephone Co (page 686)

First suit:

• Ryan was discharged from work on charges of theft of company property
• He then applied for unemployment insurance benefits, but his application was rejected on the ground the discharge was the result of his own misconduct
• he appealed to the Unemployment Insurance Administrative Law Judge who sustained the ruling
• this action was affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Board , whose decision was upheld by the Appellate Division

Second suit:

• P commenced action asserting many claims…
• D pleaded an affirmative defense of res judicata and collateral estoppel on the basis of prior administration determination
• When P moved to dismiss the affirmative defense, D cross moved to dismiss many of the claims
• Lower court granted P's motion and dismissed the affirmative defense, but the Appellate Division certified to the court of appeals the question of whether this ruling was correct.
• This court, Court of Appeals, now reverse grant defendants' cross motion to dismiss and answer the certified question in the negative (the lower court's ruling was incorrect. P's motion to dismiss should not have been granted)

Two criteria: the identically and decisiveness of the issues; and the opportunity for a full and fair hearing . If both of these are satisfied there is no collateral estoppel.

HOLD: plaintiff did not demonstrate there was a lack of a full and fair opportunity to litigate, and the issues in that proceeding and the causes of action here in question are identical and dispositive. Therefore the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies and precludes relitigation of the prior determination.

Gilberg v. Barbieri (page 688)

First suit:

• Gilberg filed a criminal complaint charging Barbieri with harassment, a petty offense
• the city court found Barbieri guilty

Second suit:

• Barbieri then sought $250,000 in a civil suit for damages
• Gilberg moved for summary judgement arguing the City Court ruling estopped Barbieri's denial of liability
• Trial court granted summary judgement, Appellate Division affirmed
• Court of Appeals reversed because it found Barbieri had not had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding
• RAT: because of the relative insignificance of the charge, the defendant had no constitutional or statutory right to a jury trial