Skip to Content (Press Enter)

Skip to Nav (Press Enter)

Claim & Issue Preclusion

Subscribe to California Appellate Tracker

Thank you for your desire to subscribe to Severson & Werson’s Appellate Tracker Weblog. In order to subscribe, you must provide a valid name and e-mail address. This too will be retained on our server. When you push the “subscribe button”, we will send an electronic mail to the address that you provided asking you to confirm your subscription to our Weblog. By pushing the “subscribe button”, you represent and warrant that you are over the age of 18 years old, are the owner/authorized user of that e-mail address, and are entitled to receive e-mails at that address. Our weblog will retain your name and e-mail address on its server, or the server of its web host. However, we won’t share any of this information with anyone except the Firm’s employees and contractors, except under certain extraordinary circumstances described on our Privacy Policy and (About The Consumer Finance Blog/About the Appellate Tracker Weblog) Page. NOTICE AND AGREEMENT REGARDING E-MAILS AND CALLS/TEXT MESSAGES TO LAND-LINE AND WIRELESS TELEPHONES: By providing your contact information and confirming your subscription in response to the initial e-mail that we send you, you agree to receive e-mail messages from Severson & Werson from time-to-time and understand and agree that such messages are or may be sent by means of automated dialing technology. If you have your email forwarded to other electronic media, including text messages and cellular telephone by way of VoIP, internet, social media, or otherwise, you agree to receive my messages in that way. This may result in charges to you. Your agreement and consent also extend to any other agents, affiliates, or entities to whom our communications are forwarded. You agree that you will notify Severson & Werson in writing if you revoke this agreement and that your revocation will not be effective until you notify Severson & Werson in writing. You understand and agree that you will afford Severson & Werson a reasonable time to unsubscribe you from the website, that the ability to do so depends on Severson & Werson’s press of business and access to the weblog, and that you may still receive one or more emails or communications from weblog until we are able to unsubscribe you.

The district court correctly dismissed this suit on claim preclusion grounds.  A different environmental advocacy group had earlier brought suit in Oregon challenging the same Fish & Wildlife plan for bull trout.  The Oregon district court dismissed the complaint with leave to amend.  The plaintiff elected not to amend, instead appealing unsuccessfully.  Then the current plaintiff sued to challenge the… Read More

A judgment is not one "on the merits" entitled to claim or issue preclusive effect if the appeal from the judgment is dismissed solely on the ground that the appeal is moot due to post-judgment events--such as, in this case, completion of the development project that allegedly violated zoning of CEQA requirements.  See also Coalition for a Sustainable Future in… Read More

A statement of decision entered in earlier litigation brought against the plaintiff in this suit was a sufficiently final determination to be accorded claim preclusive effect even though the parties thereafter settled and obtained a stipulated order from a different judge vacating key portions of the statement of decision.  The opinion contains a lengthy discussion of authorities on the point… Read More

Distinguishing Law v. Siegel (2014) 134 S.Ct. 1188, this decision holds that a bankruptcy court may apply claim and issue preclusion doctrines to bar later assertion of exemptions it has already denied.  Here, Albert claimed two exemptions when she originally filed her Chapter 13 petition.  A creditor objected, and the bankruptcy court denied the exemptions.  Albert failed to appeal.  Later,… Read More

Applying Semtek Internat. Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp. (2001) 531 U.S. 497, this decision holds that a federal district court's dismissal of a 42 USC 1983 claim on the ground it was precluded by the res judicata effect of a state administrative decision denying her claim is not a final judgment entitled to claim preclusive effect under federal common law. … Read More

In a criminal prosecution for theft from an elder, defendant stipulated to a restitution amount of $700,000, so she was estopped from denying that damage amount in a later action for double damages under the Probate Code. Read More

In a criminal prosecution for theft from an elder, defendant stipulated to a restitution amount of $700,000, so she was estopped from denying that damage amount in a later action for double damages under the Probate Code. Read More

For res judicata purposes, a person seeking mandate review of a city’s approval of a Walmart store expansion is in privity with an earlier petitioner for similar relief as both sought to represent the public interest. Read More

When an appeals court affirms a trial court’s ruling on only one ground, that is only the ground that can be given claim preclusive or issue preclusive effect in subsequent litigation.  Read More

A second class action is entitled to American Pipe tolling of the statute of limitations during the pendency of a first class action on the same claim if the first action is dismissed for lack of an adequate class representative and a new named plaintiff is promptly added. Read More

Judgment in earlier wage & hour class action that employees filed against their staffing company employer barred later suit on the same claims by same employees against the firm where they worked since that firm was the staffing company’s agent with respect to payroll matters. Read More

An unlawful detainer judgment does not bar the landlord’s civil action to collect past-due rent since the landlord can collect only limited amounts of rent in an unlawful detainer proceeding. Read More

The National Labor Relations Board did not abuse its discretion in applying only prospectively its new standard according less deference to arbitrators’ findings in determining unfair labor practice charges; parties had detrimentally relied on the prior decades-old standard in litigating pending cases. Read More

An administrative law judge’s determination denying plaintiff worker compensation benefits for psychiatric injuries allegedly caused by employment discrimination or harassment precludes a later civil suit under the Fair Employment and Housing Act for the same alleged acts of employment discrimination or harassment. Read More

1 2