Claim & Issue Preclusion

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

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

Once it concludes that it lacks jurisdiction, a district court may not rule on the merits of an action; and if it does so anyway, the resulting judgment is not effective for purposes of res judicata.  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