res judicata doctrine in Louisiana

2013LAW AND ANALYSIS In general, the doctrine of res judicata, as set forth in LSA-R.S. 13:4231, bars a subsequent action when all of the following elements are satisfied, in a prior action: (1) the judgment is valid; (2) the judgment is final; (3) the parties are the same; (4) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit existed at the time of the final judgment in the first litigation; and (5) the cause or causes of action asserted in the second suit arose out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the first litigation. 2 See Burguieres v. Pollingue, 2002-13

2011Thereafter, on December 18, 2010, the OWC rendered judgment reiterating its prior ruling granting the defendants’ exceptions of prescription and res judicata as to the claim for indemnity benefits, dismissing the claim for indemnity benefits with prejudice, and designating the judgment as final, pursuant to LSA-C.C.P. art. 1915. 2 Mr. Pal appeals the OWC’s granting of the defendants’ exceptions of prescription and res judicata and the dismissal of his claim for indemnity benefits. |fiLAW AND ANALYSIS OWC Finding of Res Judicata In general, the doctrine of res judicata, as set forth in LSA-R.S.

2013Id. | fiLa: R.S. 13:4231 sets forth the doctrine of res judicata in Louisiana as follows: Except as otherwise provided by law, a valid and final judgment is conclusive between the same parties, except on appeal or other direct review, to the following extent: 1) If the judgment is in favor of the plaintiff, all causes of action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation are extinguished and merged in the judgment. 2) If the judgment is in favor of the defendant, all causes of action existing at the time of fi

2012The doctrine of res judicata “promotes judicial efficiency and final resolution of disputes.” Avenue Plaza, L.L.C. v. Falgoust, 96-0178 (La.7/2/96), 676 So.2d 1077, 1079 . “[RJes judicata precludes re-litigation of claims and issues arising out of the same factual circumstances when there is a valid final judgment.” Insurance Co. of North America, v. Louisiana Power and Light Co., 2008-1315, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/4/09), 10 So.3d 264, 267 .

2022R.S. 13:4231(1), “[i]f the judgment is in favor of the plaintiff, all causes of action existing at the time of final judgment arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the litigation are extinguished and merged in the judgment.” This Court explained that “while ordinarily premised on a final judgment, the doctrine of res judicata also applies where there is a compromise or settlement of a disputed claim or matter that has been entered into between the parties.” Joseph v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., 18- 02061, p. 3 (La. 1/29/20), -- So.3d --, 2020 WL 499939 , *3 (c

2012Chaisson v. Central Crane Service, 2010-0112, p. 5 (La.App. 1 Cir. 7/29/10), 44 So.3d 883, 886 (citing Ortego v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 96-1322, p. 6 (La.2/25/97), 689 So.2d 1358, 1363 ).

2020Co., 95-654 (La. 1/16/96), 666 So.2d 624, 632 , the Louisiana Supreme Court held that an attempt by a party to litigate matters in a second suit that could have been raised in the first suit is barred by the doctrine of res judicata.

2014Indeed, the Louisiana Supreme Court has admonished that “[w]hile res judicata is a useful tool, it should not be used as a scythe applied mechanically to mow down claims where the party asserting the claim is not at fault for the lack of adjudication of that claim in the first suit.” Placid Refining, 95-0654 at pp. 19-20, 666 So.2d at 635 . 10 As noted, the Legislature codified in the res judicata statutory provision exceptions to the res judicata rule.

2003That is, “[ujnder the res judicata doctrine, ‘the formula derived in Louisiana jurisprudence states there must be identity in the two suits as to the thing demanded, the demand must be founded on the same cause of action, and the demand must be between the same parties.’ ” Berrigan v. Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, 2001-0612, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/2/02), 806 So.2d 163, 167 , quoting Cuccia v. Jefferson Parish School Board, 613 So.2d 1141, 1142 (La.App. 5 Cir.1993).

2003“Under the res judicata doctrine, ‘the formula derived in Louisiana jurisprudence states there must be identity in the two suits as to the thing demanded, the demand must be founded on the same cause of action, and the demand must be between the same parties.’ ” Berrigan v. Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, 2002-0612, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/2/02), 806 So.2d 163, 167 , citing, Cuccia v. Jefferson Parish School Board, 613 So.2d 1141, 1142 (La.App. 5th Cir.1993).

2016“However, ‘[ujnlike the statutory doctrine of res judicata, the jurisprudential doctrine of law of the case is a discretionary guide that will not be applied inflexibly.’ ” Id., 11-0598, p. 8, 89 So.3d at 1212 , quoting Daigre v. International Truck and Engine Corp., 10-1379, p. 15 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/5/11), 67 So.3d 504, 513-14 . |r“The doctrine does not apply in the context of a trial court ruling on ¡interlocutory issues.” Land v. Vidrine, 10-1342, p. 9 (La.3/15/11), 62 So.3d 36, 42 .

2013Day v. Campbell-Grosjean Roofing & Sheet Metal Corp., 260 La. 325, 330 , 256 So.2d 105, 107 (1971). |7However, “[ujnlike the statutory doctrine of res judicata, the jurisprudential doctrine of law of the case is a discretionary guide that will not be applied inflexibly.” Daigre v. International Truck and Engine Corp., 10-1379, p. 15 (La.App. 4 Cir. 5/5/11), 67 So.3d 504, 513-514 .

2014As it pertains to the doctrine of res judicata, a privy is defined as “one who, after the commencement of an action, has acquired an interest in the subject matter affected by the judgment through or under one of the parties, as by inheritance, succession, purchase or assignment.” Five N Company, L.L.C. v. Stewart, 2002-0181, p. 16 (La.App. 1st Cir.7/2/08), 850 So.2d 51 , 61 citing Black’s Law Dictionary (6th Ed. 1990).

2005"In connection with the doctrine of res judicata, a `privy' is `one who, after the commencement of the action, has acquired an interest in the subject matter affected by the judgment through or under one of the parties, as by inheritance, succession, purchase or assignment.' Black's Law Dictionary 1200 (6th ed.1990)." Five N Co. v. Stewart, 02-0181, p. 16 (La.App. 1 Cir. 7/2/03), 850 So.2d 51, 61 .

2024App. 4 Cir. 5/19/10), 43 So. 3d 207, 211 ). 2 Pursuant to the elements outlined in Kimball, the res judicata claim fails.

2015Id. 17Like Mr. Jones in the instant case, the manufacturer argued that the “same parties” prong of the res judicata analysis was not met, since the plaintiff in the first case was not the same plaintiff in the subsequent case.

2015Classen v. Hofmann, 06-560 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/28/06) , 947 So.2d 76, 81 .

2015Classen v. Hofmann, 06-560 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/28/06) , 947 So.2d 76, 81 .

2004Berrigan v. Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, L.L.P., 01-612 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/2/02) , 806 So.2d 163, 167 , writs denied, 02-338 and 02-341 (La.4/12/02), 813 So.2d 410 .

2002Discussing the res judicata doctrine, this court in Berrigan v. Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, 2001-0612 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/2/02) , 806 So.2d 163 , writ denied, 2002-0338, 2002-0341 (La.4/12/02), 813 So.2d 410 , noted as follows: [T]he formula derived in Louisiana jurisprudence states there must be identity in the two suits as to the thing demanded, the demand must be founded on the same cause of action, and the demand must be between the same parties. .. .A party urging an exception of res judicata carries the burden of proving the necessary elements listed above by a preponderance of the ev

1991LSA-R.S. 13:4231; Mitchell v. Bertolla, 340 So.2d 287 (La.1976).

1984Mitchell v. Bertolla, 340 So.2d 287 (La.1976). 1 If the wife had litigated her suit for divorce based on adultery and had lost, she could have immediately filed a suit for divorce grounded on a separation of one year, and the judgment in the adultery suit clearly would not constitute a res judicata bar to the second suit (even if the one-year cause of action had accrued before the judgment).

1988La.C.C. art. 2286;4 Safeco Insurance Company of America v. Palermo, 436 So.2d 536 (La.1983).

1986La.C.C. art. 2286; [4] Safeco Insurance Company of America v. Palermo, 436 So.2d 536 (La.1983).

1988In Yelverton, supra, the court explained why a reconsideration of defendant's claim of illegality of his sentence was precluded by citing State v. Latil, 231 La. 551 , 92 So.2d 63 (La.1956): A rule universally obtaining is that the doctrine of res judicata—by which a fact or matter distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot thereafter be disputed between the same parties—is applicable to judgment in criminal prosecutions.

1988In Yelverton, supra, the court explained why a reconsideration of defendant's claim of illegality of his sentence was precluded by citing State v. Latil, 231 La. 551 , 92 So.2d 63 (La.1956): A rule universally obtaining is that the doctrine of res judicata—by which a fact or matter distinctly put in issue and directly determined by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot thereafter be disputed between the same parties—is applicable to judgment in criminal prosecutions.

1941In the Hope v. Madison case, 194 La. 337 , 193 So. 666, 668 , will be found a thorough and exhaustive review of the jurisprudence of this state and of the comments of some of the leading French authorities relating to the doctrine of res judicata, and the conclusion reached was, in sum, that the exception of the thing adjudged is stricti juris and that an exception or plea of res judicata cannot be sustained unless it clearly appears that there is an identity of the object of the judgment or thing demanded, of the cause of action, and of the parties — these being the essentials or requisites p

1941In the Hope v. Madison case, 194 La. 337 , 193 So. 666, 668 , will be found a thorough and exhaustive review of the jurisprudence of this state and of the comments of some of the leading French authorities relating to the doctrine of res judicata, and the conclusion reached was, in sum, that the exception of the thing adjudged is stricti juris and that an exception or plea of res judicata cannot be sustained unless it clearly appears that there is an identity of the object of the judgment or thing demanded, of the cause of action, and of the parties — these being the essentials or requisites p

1959“Here in Louisiana the doctrine is much more restricted than in common law States. *223 State of Louisiana v. American Sugar Refining Co. (recently decided) 108 La. 603 , 32 So. 965 .” In Quarles v. Lewis, supra, the court cited and discussed several Louisiana cases which seem to ignore the provisions of Article 2286 and apply the common-law doctrine of res judicata, and then observed that the court was in error in each of those cases in treating the plea in bar as one of res judicata and in confounding the common-law principle of res judicata with-the doctrine of this state, and that the plea

1941We quoted with approval the following extract from State v. American Sugar Refining Co., 108 La. 603 , 32 So. 965 : “The law of res judicata is stated with great simplicity and precision by article 2286, Civ.Code, as follows: “ ‘The authority of the thing adjudged takes place only with respect to what was the object of the judgment.

2012The doctrine of res judicata “promotes judicial efficiency and final resolution of disputes.” Avenue Plaza, L.L.C. v. Falgoust, 96-0178 (La.7/2/96), 676 So.2d 1077, 1079 . “[RJes judicata precludes re-litigation of claims and issues arising out of the same factual circumstances when there is a valid final judgment.” Insurance Co. of North America, v. Louisiana Power and Light Co., 2008-1315, p. 5 (La.App. 4 Cir. 3/4/09), 10 So.3d 264, 267 .

2009Co. of N. Am., 08-1315, p. 5, 10 So.3d at 267 .

2007Martin, Inc., 03-1540, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/1/04), 895 So.2d 552, 564 , on rehearing, writ denied, 05-1027 (La.6/3/05), 903 So.2d 467 ( quoting Prudhomme v. Iberville Insulations, 93-778, *251 p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/2/94), 633 So.2d 380, 382 ), this court discussed the concept of res judicata and its applicability in the workers' compensation setting, observing that "the doctrine of res judicata must be applied to workers' compensation `in light of the rule that the Act must be construed liberally in favor of the employee.'" In Metoyer , the question of whether claims for incorrect and unti

2005Further, as noted by this court in Prudhomme v. Iberville Insulations, 93-778, p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/2/94), 633 So.2d 380, 382 , the doctrine of res judicata must be applied to workers' compensation "in light of the rule that the Act must be construed liberally in favor of the employee." Our review of the trial record of docket number 99-0549 convinces us that the only matters concluded by the judgments rendered under that docket number were Martco's first untimely payment of benefit for the period from December 27, 1998 through January 3, 1999 and the amount to be awarded in attorney's fees

2007Martin, Inc., 03-1540, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/1/04), 895 So.2d 552, 564 , on rehearing, writ denied, 05-1027 (La.6/3/05), 903 So.2d 467 ( quoting Prudhomme v. Iberville Insulations, 93-778, *251 p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/2/94), 633 So.2d 380, 382 ), this court discussed the concept of res judicata and its applicability in the workers' compensation setting, observing that "the doctrine of res judicata must be applied to workers' compensation `in light of the rule that the Act must be construed liberally in favor of the employee.'" In Metoyer , the question of whether claims for incorrect and unti

2006Martin, 03-1540, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/1/04), 895 So.2d 552, 564 , on rehearing, writ denied, 05-1027 (La.6/3/05), 903 So.2d 467 (quoting Lee v. Twin Bros.

2007Id.

2005Stroscher v. Stroscker, 01-2769 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2/14/03) , 845 So.2d 518, 525 .

2007Martin, Inc., 03-1540, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/1/04), 895 So.2d 552, 564 , on rehearing, writ denied, 05-1027 (La.6/3/05), 903 So.2d 467 ( quoting Prudhomme v. Iberville Insulations, 93-778, *251 p. 4 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/2/94), 633 So.2d 380, 382 ), this court discussed the concept of res judicata and its applicability in the workers' compensation setting, observing that "the doctrine of res judicata must be applied to workers' compensation `in light of the rule that the Act must be construed liberally in favor of the employee.'" In Metoyer , the question of whether claims for incorrect and unti

2006Martin, 03-1540, p. 2 (La.App. 3 Cir. 12/1/04), 895 So.2d 552, 564 , on rehearing, writ denied, 05-1027 (La.6/3/05), 903 So.2d 467 (quoting Lee v. Twin Bros.

2006It further observed that the meaning of the phrase, in terms of the subject matter of the litigation, "has been determined on a case-by-case basis." Id., 97-28 at p. 6, 702 So.2d at 1060 .

1999This court in Hy-Octane Investments. v. G & B Oil Prod. 97-28 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/29/97) ; 702 So.2d 1057 , discussed the meaning of the term "transaction or occurrence" as it concerns the doctrine of res judicata.

1987Although the taxpayer argued and the Government conceded that the factual matters at issue in the penalty proceeding had been litigated and determined in the prior criminal action, the Court concluded that ‘[t]he difference in degree in the burden of proof in criminal and civil cases precludes application of the doctrine of res judicata.’ Id., at 397, 58 S.Ct., at 632 .

1954The ruling of the Court in these two cases was somewhat modified by Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391 , 58 S.Ct. 630 , 82 L.Ed. 917 , and it held that in a civil proceeding the degree of the burden of proof was different from that in the criminal proceeding and this precluded the application of the doctrine of res judicata.

1977Under the Louisiana doctrine of res judicata, as enunciated in Sliman v. McBee, 311 So.2d 248 (La., 1975), comment at 36 L.L.R. 573, and Rivette v. Moreau, 336 So.2d 864 (La., 1976), the prior judgment would not bar this litigation because of differences in the cause, i. e., the amount claimed.

1977See: Mitchell v. Bertolla, 340 So.2d 287 (La.1976); Sliman v. McBee, 311 So.2d 248 (La.1975); Hope v. Madison, 194 La. 337 , 193 So. 666 (1940); Dixon, Res Judicata in Louisiana since Hope v. Madison, 51 Tul.L.Rev. 611 (1977); O'Quin, Res Judicata—"Matters Which Might Have Been Pleaded," 2 La.L.Rev. 491 (Part 1), 491 (Part 2) (1940).

1976Martinville v. Dugas, 158 La. 262 , 103 So. 761 (1925), wherein this Court stated that in Louisiana "the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to criminal prosecutions." However, since 1956 and the decision in State v. Latil, 231 La. 551 , 92 So.2d 63 (1956) it has been evident that in this state res judicata does have a place in the criminal law.

1956Martinville v. Dugas, 158 La. 262 , 103 So. 761, 763 , which is the source of the statement that in Louisiana “the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to criminal prosecutions.” A study and analysis of this decision, however, discloses the statement was made without further discussion or elaboration and without citation of authority.