Res Judicata = Claims Collateral Estoppel = Issues Who is bound???

- Parties - Those in Privity Claim 1 legal theory in which a Plaintiff has a remedy Cause of Action (COA) one or more claims on the merits Law Suit can have multiple COA and/or claims ELEMENTS: Judgment on Merits, Same Parties (privites), Same cause of action! What is precluded? - Claim if litigated in pervious suit, thing decided - Facts that are determined to exist will be determined to exist in subsequent law suits. o Hypo: Lawsuit 1 (A sues D, D drunk, D ran a red light) Lawsuit 2 (this time P sues D, thing decided is D drunk, D ran a red light, P s drunk too diff. claim) Hypo: Lawsuit, Car Accident, NY resident, occurs in MI, drunk driver also a NY resident. Drunk Driver has PJ in NY, occurs in MI (specific contact), if NY driver sues in NY and wins and brings suit in MI, precluded from the suit in MI. IF different claims one of the following will make those claims the same cause of action, thus precluded. Wrongful Conduct (Ohio) (SAM) P s Primary Rights (Indiana) Same Evidence Same transaction or occurrence (*MODERN TEST*)

Hypo: Lawsuit 1 Auto accident, D drunk, ran a red light, P sues for car damage. Lawsuit 2 Auto accident, D drunk, ran a red light, P sues for lost wages, physical injury, and emotional distress. Collateral Estoppel 1) Judgment with a different cause of action 2) Identical issue in suit 1 & 2 3) Fully & Fairly litigated & actually decided a. First case brought in wrong court is this full & fair? NO i. Court must address all elements and make a judgment 4) Essential to the judgment a. Hypo: 1st case dismissed bc of lack of jurisdiction, lack of contract rights.

i. WHY? Was there is a dismissal (IF you can take out first issue of why it was dismissed then it WAS NO essential) 1. Hypo: Issue before federal court on SMJ Jurisdiction, PJ, Failure to State a Claim (did not allege breach of K), Failure to proper service. (here four issues being decided, federal court cannot answer K law, must be state only essential issue is jurisdiction SMJ, therefore NOT essential) look for analysis from the court. 5) Same parties a. Mutuality i. Same parities in same suit (IF YES CE IF NO (ask IF jurisdiction looks at mutuality or non-mutuality if non is it fair??) FL & MI require mutuality ii. IF mutuality and don t have same parties then NOT CE. b. Non- Mutuality i. Park Lane 1. OFFENSIVE NON-MUTUAL COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL 2. ASK could the 2nd plaintiffs have been joined? & FAIR to defendant? LOOK AT FAIRNES FACTORS: a. Suit 1 Small Amount V Suit 2 Large Amount b. Loose Suit Small Amount No Appeal c. Different procedures / Suit 2

d. Prior inconsistent judgment

i. Suit 1 Liable Judgment against D ii. Suit 2 Not Liable Judgment for D iii. Suit 3 Comparative Negligence for D iv. 45 suits total fair? NO (not fair to def) e. Suit 2 foreseeable????? 3. Defensive Non-Mutuality a. Using the shield, already had day in court.