Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata)
Claim preclusion bars relitigation of claims that were or could have been raised in a prior action between the same parties that resulted in a final judgment on the merits.
Claim preclusion, also known as res judicata, is a doctrine that prevents a party from relitigating a claim that was or could have been asserted in a prior action between the same parties (or their privies) that concluded with a valid, final judgment on the merits. The doctrine serves the policy goals of judicial economy, finality of judgments, and protecting parties from the burden of repeated litigation.
Three elements must be satisfied for claim preclusion to apply. First, the prior action must have resulted in a valid final judgment on the merits. Dismissals for failure to state a claim, summary judgments, and trial verdicts all qualify. Dismissals for lack of jurisdiction or improper venue generally do not. Second, the parties in the current action must be the same as (or in privity with) the parties in the prior action. Privity encompasses legal relationships such as successors in interest, agents, and others whose interests were adequately represented. Third, the claim in the current action must be the same as, or arise from the same transaction or occurrence as, the claim in the prior action.
The transactional test is the predominant modern approach to defining the scope of a claim for preclusion purposes. Under the Restatement (Second) of Judgments, a claim encompasses all rights of the plaintiff to remedies arising from the same transaction or series of transactions. This means that a party must raise all theories of recovery arising from the same facts in a single lawsuit. Splitting claims — bringing one theory first and holding others in reserve — is barred.
Claim preclusion applies to claims that were actually litigated as well as those that could have been raised but were not. This compulsory joinder aspect is what distinguishes claim preclusion from issue preclusion (collateral estoppel), which applies only to issues actually litigated and necessarily decided. The harshness of claim preclusion's merger and bar effects underscores the importance of thoroughly investigating all potential claims before filing suit.
Key Elements
- 1A valid final judgment on the merits in the prior action
- 2The same parties or their privies in both actions
- 3The current claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the prior claim
- 4Claims that were or could have been raised are barred
- 5The transactional test defines the scope of the claim
Why Law Students Need to Know This
Claim preclusion is one of the most commonly tested civil procedure topics. Students must distinguish it from issue preclusion, apply the transactional test to define the scope of the claim, and understand the implications of failing to raise all related theories in a single action.
Landmark Case
Federated Department Stores v. Moitie
Read the full case brief →