Claim Preclusion
Claim preclusion stops a party from getting a second bite at the same apple.
20. Claim Preclusion
A party may not relitigate a claim that has been resolved by a final judgment on the merits. Nor may a party file a new claim arising from the same transaction or occurrence as the original claim.
- Claim preclusion requires a final judgment on the merits.
- The dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, a default judgment, and a summary judgment can all be final judgments on the merits.
- This rule applies to claims filed in any forum. If A sues B for negligence arising out of an auto collision and loses, A cannot raise the same claim against B in any forum. The prohibition on asserting the same claim is not limited to just the forum where A lost.
- This rule precludes all claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence that could have been raised, even if those claims were not asserted in the first action. If A sues B for negligence arising out of an auto collision and loses, A cannot then sue B for battery based on the same collision.
- Claim preclusion binds all parties who participated in the prior lawsuit. It does not bind parties who had no relationship to the prior lawsuit.
- Claim preclusion embodies respect for other courts as well as considerations of judicial efficiency.
Claim preclusion stops a party from getting a second bite at the same apple. Once a claim is resolved by a final judgment on the merits, the party may not relitigate it or bring a new claim arising from the same transaction or occurrence as the original.
Start with the trigger: claim preclusion requires a final judgment on the merits, and the scope is broad about what counts. A dismissal for failure to state a claim, a default judgment, and a summary judgment can all be final judgments on the merits. So a party who lost any of those ways can be precluded; it does not take a full trial. Underneath, claim preclusion embodies respect for other courts and considerations of judicial efficiency.
- 1It applies in any forum. A party who sued and lost on a claim cannot raise the same claim again in any forum, not just the court where it lost.
- 2It reaches everything from the same transaction or occurrence that could have been raised, even claims never actually asserted in the first action. Sue on one theory from an event and lose, and a different theory from the same event is gone too.
- 3It binds all parties who participated in the prior lawsuit. It does not bind parties who had no relationship to the prior lawsuit; a stranger to the first suit is not caught by it.
The classic traps: thinking the bar only works in the same court (it works in any forum), thinking only the claims actually litigated are barred (claims that could have been raised from the same transaction are barred too), and thinking it binds someone who was never part of the first suit (it does not).
"One final merits judgment closes the whole transaction, everywhere, for the parties who were there."
Trigger: a final judgment on the merits, and a dismissal for failure to state a claim, a default judgment, and a summary judgment all qualify.
Reach: any forum (not just where you lost); every claim from the same transaction or occurrence that could have been raised, even if it was not.
Limit: binds only parties who participated in the prior lawsuit, never a stranger to it.
Three throwaway arguments that lose: "different court," "I never actually raised that claim," and "bind someone who was not in the first suit."
A driver sued another driver for negligence arising out of a single auto collision and lost on a summary judgment that was a final judgment on the merits. The driver then files a new lawsuit against the same opposing driver, this time alleging battery based on the very same collision, and files it in a different court hoping the prior loss will not follow. The opposing driver raises claim preclusion.
The new suit is barred. Now change the parties: suppose the second suit is against a passenger who was a complete stranger to the first lawsuit and had no relationship to it. Claim preclusion does not bind a party who had no relationship to the prior lawsuit, so the bar would not reach that stranger.
An option requires a full trial, or says a dismissal for failure to state a claim, a default judgment, or a summary judgment cannot trigger claim preclusion.
Claim preclusion requires a final judgment on the merits, and all three of those dispositions can be final judgments on the merits.An option confines the bar to the same forum where the party lost.
Claim preclusion applies to the same claim in any forum; the prohibition is not limited to the original forum.An option lets a party escape because the new claim or theory was never actually litigated, or labels the new wrong differently.
The rule bars all claims arising from the same transaction or occurrence that could have been raised, even if not asserted; different labels do not matter.An absolute option binding anyone, or any party who commits a similar wrong, regardless of participation in the first suit.
Claim preclusion binds only parties who participated in the prior lawsuit and does not bind a stranger who had no relationship to it.the stem hands you a party trying to sue again after an earlier case ended, often dressing the second suit up as a different theory, a different court, or a claim that was never actually litigated.
The instant you see a do-over, run the preclusion check: was there a final judgment on the merits in the first action (remembering a dismissal for failure to state a claim, a default judgment, and a summary judgment all count)?
If so, the same claim is barred in any forum, and so is every claim from the same transaction or occurrence that could have been raised, even if it was not.
Then check the parties: the bar reaches those who participated in the prior lawsuit and does not reach a stranger who had no relationship to it.
A buyer sued a seller for breach of contract arising out of a single sale, and the suit ended in a summary judgment for the seller that was a final judgment on the merits. The buyer later filed a new lawsuit against the same seller, this time framing the dispute over the same sale as a different legal theory. The seller argued that the new suit was barred even though the new theory had not been litigated in the first case.
Is the buyer's new claim barred by claim preclusion?
A shipper sued a carrier for negligence arising out of a single damaged shipment and lost on a final judgment on the merits. Determined to try again, the shipper filed an identical negligence claim against the same carrier over the same shipment, but this time chose to file in a different court in another forum, believing the earlier loss would not reach the new court.
Does the change of forum allow the shipper to bring the same claim again?
A homeowner sued a contractor over a single renovation project and obtained a final judgment on the merits. A neighbor, who was never a party to that lawsuit and had no relationship to it, later brought an entirely separate claim against the same contractor arising from work on the neighbor's own property. The contractor argued that the prior judgment should bind the neighbor and bar the neighbor's claim.
Does claim preclusion from the prior lawsuit bind the neighbor?
A plaintiff sued a defendant over a single incident, and the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim in a ruling that operated as a final judgment on the merits. The plaintiff then filed a new action against the same defendant on the same claim arising from the same incident. The plaintiff argued that because the first case ended on a dismissal rather than after a trial, claim preclusion could not apply.
Can the dismissal for failure to state a claim support claim preclusion against the new action?
A pedestrian sued a driver for negligence arising out of a single car-pedestrian collision and lost on a final judgment on the merits. The pedestrian then filed a new suit against the same driver for battery based on the very same collision, asserting that battery is a different wrong that the first suit did not decide. The driver argued the second suit was barred.
Is the pedestrian's battery claim barred by claim preclusion?