Effective, Experienced, Exceptional.

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 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

Prior state court judgment based on collateral estoppel effect of a federal court judgment is not entitled to res judicata effect after the federal court judgment was reversed on appeal. Read More

On his motion to quash service of summons in an unlawful detainer action against him, plaintiff fully litigated his claim that he was fraudulently induced to sign a lease rather than a loan agreement, so the unlawful detainer judgment collaterally estopped him from pursuing his parallel civil action.  Read More

One wrongly decided California Court of Appeal opinion is not sufficient grounds for avoiding the res judicata impact of a prior judgment on “change of applicable law” grounds since no other appellate court need follow that errant decision.  Read More

A California state court judgment must be given issue preclusive effect on any issue it decides even if it is affirmed by the state Court of Appeal only on other issues.   Read More

Plaintiff’s unsuccessful federal 1983 suit against the Franchise Tax Board for publishing plaintiff’s name as one of the top 500 tax debtors barred later state law suit against the FTB for that same act.  Read More

Res judicata did not bar current because since the current defendants who were not parties to the prior suit and were not in privity with those parties, and because the record did not show the reason why the prior suit was dismissed on the pleadings. Read More

1 2