CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 41
Professor Fischer
Columbus School of Law
The Catholic University of America
Dec 2, 2002
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Exam review classes
Exam is completely open book.
EXAM TIPS
Read questions carefully and remember
to answer the question asked
Use IRAC form for each issue in
question
Answer every question; manage your
time carefully
Get sufficient sleep the night before the
exam.
WRAP-UP OF LAST CLASS
Claim preclusion
Issue preclusion
ELEMENTS OF ISSUE
PRECLUSION
Same issue
Actually litigated thus an admission is
not enough for issue preclusion to apply
Actually decided by a valid and final
judgment
Determination is essential to judgment
Some courts require mutuality, i.e.
same parties
NECESSARY TO THE
JUDGMENT
Davis sued Rios for negligence in an
automobile collision. The jury found Rios
negligent but also found Davis contributorily
negligent. Judgment entered for Rios.
Should the court in a subsquent claim by Rios
for injuries suffered in the same collision hold
that Rios was barred from relitigating on the
basis that his contributory negligence
determined in first proceeding?
NECESSARY TO THE
JUDGMENT
The finding that Rios was negligent was not
essential to the judgment and the judgment
was not based thereon. Since the judgment
was in favor of Rios he had not right to
complain of or appeal from the finding that
he was guilty of such negligence even if such
finding had been without support in the
evidence. Right of appeal is from a jdugment
not a finding.
NECESSARY TO THE
JUDGMENT
A useful test_ ask yourself if the issue
had been decided the opposite way,
would the same judgment have been
entered? If so, the judgment did not
depend on the way the issue was
actually resolved. Applying this test to
Rios, we find that once jury found Davis
to be contributorily negligent, Rios had
to win.
JUDGMENT ON ALTERNATE
GROUNDS
What if judgment is explicitly based on
alternate grounds? Strictly speaking,
neither ground alone is necessary to
judgment.
Yet each supports the judgment and is
made against the losing party, so all
may be reviewed on appeal
Old rule – each alternate ground entitled to
preclusive effect
JUDGMENT ON ALTERNATE
GROUNDS
Currently, there is a division of
authority on this question.
Restatement (Second) of Judgments
states that “if a judgment of a court of
first instance is based on
determinations of two issues, either of
which standing independently would be
sufficient to support the restult, the
judgment is not conclusive with respect
to either issue standing alone.”
HOULT CASE (3d Cir. 1998)
What was Jennifer Hoult’s cause of action in
the first action?
What was the outcome of the first action?
What is David Hoult’s cause of action in the
second action?
What is the procedural issue in the second
action?
How did the trial court rule?
THE HOULT APPEAL
Does the First Circuit affirm or dismiss
Jennifer Hoult’s appeal?
What is the First Circuit’s reasoning?
MUTUALITY AND COLLATERAL
ESTOPPEL
Old rule: parties had to be the same
New rule in federal court: Parklane Hosiery
Co. v. Shore (1979)
NOTE THAT PARKLANE applies only to federal
courts. State courts are not obligated to
follow Supreme Court. You will need to check
the law carefully to see whether a jurisdiction
has abandoned mutuality, and if so, to what
extent.
DEFENSIVE NON-MUTUAL
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
In Blonder-Tongue, the Supreme Court first
endorses the use of nonmutual estoppel
What are the key facts of Blonder-Tongue
What is the policy justification for the
Supreme Court’s reversal of its long-standing
rule requiring mutuality?
What is the difference between the use of
collateral estoppel in Blonder-Tongue and in
Parklane?
DEFENSIVE NONMUTUAL
ESTOPPEL
Suit 1: P sues D1 (P loses on Issue A)
Suit 1: P sues D2 (D2 pleads collateral
estoppel to bar plaintiff from relitigating
Issue A)
PARKLANE HOSIERY V. SHORE
Offensive nonmutual estoppel
What are the key facts in Parklane?
OFFENSIVE NONMUTUAL
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
Suit 1: P1 sues D (D loses on Issue A)
Suit 2: P2 sues D (new plaintiff invokes
collateral estoppel to establish Issue A
in her suit against D)
What are the risks posed by offensive
use of estoppel?
SUPREME COURT IN
PARKLANE
Does the Supreme Court categorically
endorse or reject offensive nonmutual
collateral estoppel?
What factors must lower courts
consider?
4 PARKLANE FACTORS
1. Could nonparty have joined prior
litigation?
2. Was subsequent litigation foreseeable at
time of first suit?
3. Is judgment being relied on consistent
with prior judgments against this D?
4. Are there any procedural opportunities
available to D in second action that did not
exist in the first that would lead to a different
result?
FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES
Parties may select a venue that is not a
statutory venue by including a forum
selection clause in a contract.
In Bremen v. Zapata, 407 U.S. 1, 15 (1972),
Supreme Court held that federal courts sitting
in admiralty should enforce such clauses
absent showing that doing so “would be
unreasonable or unjust, or that the clause
was invalid for such reasons as fraud or
overreaching”
Non-negotiable forum selection clauses have
been enforced by the Supreme Court.
PIPER AIRCRAFT CO. V.
REYNO (1981)
Landmark decision
Who is the plaintiff?
Who is plaintiff suing?
What is the cause of action?
Where does plaintiff bring the action?
Why does plaintiff choose that forum?