Res Judicata: Volume 1

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze and discuss the doctrine of res judicata. Volume 1 of the casebook covers the District of Columbia Circuit and the First through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. "To determine whether the doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent action, we consider whether (1) the prior decision was a final judgment on the merits, (2) the litigants were the same parties, (3) the prior court was of competent jurisdiction, and (4) the causes of action were the same." Brown Media Corp. v. K&L Gates, LLP, 854 F.3d 150, 157 (2d Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting In re Layo, 460 F.3d 289, 292 (2d Cir. 2006)). "The doctrine of res judicata, or claim preclusion, holds that 'a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.'" Monahan v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Corr., 214 F.3d 275, 284 (2d Cir. 2000) (quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980)). In re Motors Liquidation Co., 943 F. 3d 125 (2nd Cir. 2019) "Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevents parties or their privies from relitigating in a subsequent action an issue of fact or law that was fully and fairly litigated in a prior proceeding," M.O.C.H.A. Soc'y, Inc. v. City of Buffalo, 689 F.3d 263, 284 (2d Cir. 2012), including issues of standing, see Mrazek v. Suffolk Cnty. Bd. of Elections, 630 F.2d 890, 896 n.10 (2d Cir. 1980); see also Morabito v. New York, 803 F. App'x 463, 467 (2d Cir. 2020); Stengel v. Black, 486 F. App'x 181, 183 (2d Cir. 2012). Phoenix Light SF Ltd. v. Bank of New York Mellon, 66 F. 4th 365 (2nd Cir. 2023)