claim preclusion doctrine in New Mexico

2023Compare Bank of N.Y. v. Romero, 2016-NMCA-091 , ¶ 15, 382 P.3d 991 (“The doctrine of claim preclusion, or res judicata, bars re[]litigation of the same claim between the same parties or their privies when the first litigation resulted in a final judgment on the merits.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), with Valdez, 2010-NMCA-068, ¶ 7 (describing vicarious liability as the fault one party has based on the “legal imputation of responsibility for another’s tortious acts” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {18} Third, Plaintiff argues that a release of liability is

2023Compare Bank of N.Y. v. Romero, 2016-NMCA-091 , ¶ 15, 382 P.3d 18 991 (“The doctrine of claim preclusion, or res judicata, bars re[]litigation of the same 19 claim between the same parties or their privies when the first litigation resulted in a 20 final judgment on the merits.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), with 9 1 Valdez, 2010-NMCA-068, ¶ 7 (describing vicarious liability as the fault one party 2 has based on the “legal imputation of responsibility for another’s tortious acts” 3 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 4 {18} Third, Plaintiff argues that a relea

2018"Because the claim preclusion doctrine does not bar a subsequent lawsuit unless all [of the claim preclusion] elements are met, we do not consider the parties' remaining claim preclusion arguments." Peterson , 2014-NMCA-036 , ¶ 33, 321 P.3d 128 .

2016The doctrine of claim preclusion, or res judicata, “bars re-litigation of the same claim between the same parties or their privies when the first litigation resulted in a final judgment on the merits.” Peterson, 2014-NMCA-036, ¶ 24 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). “ ‘The party asserting claim preclusion must satisfy the following four requirements: (1) the parties must be the same, (2) the cause of action must be the same, (3) there must have been a final decision in the first suit, and (4) the first decision must have been on the merits.’ ” Tunis v. Country Club E

2023Compare Bank of N.Y. v. Romero, 2016-NMCA-091 , ¶ 15, 382 P.3d 991 (“The doctrine of claim preclusion, or res judicata, bars re[]litigation of the same claim between the same parties or their privies when the first litigation resulted in a final judgment on the merits.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), with Valdez, 2010-NMCA-068, ¶ 7 (describing vicarious liability as the fault one party has based on the “legal imputation of responsibility for another’s tortious acts” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {18} Third, Plaintiff argues that a release of liability is

2023Compare Bank of N.Y. v. Romero, 2016-NMCA-091 , ¶ 15, 382 P.3d 18 991 (“The doctrine of claim preclusion, or res judicata, bars re[]litigation of the same 19 claim between the same parties or their privies when the first litigation resulted in a 20 final judgment on the merits.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)), with 9 1 Valdez, 2010-NMCA-068, ¶ 7 (describing vicarious liability as the fault one party 2 has based on the “legal imputation of responsibility for another’s tortious acts” 3 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 4 {18} Third, Plaintiff argues that a relea

2016“The purpose of our application of res judicata is to protect individuals from multiple lawsuits, to promote judicial economy, and to minimize the possibility of inconsistent judgments.” Moffat v. Branch, 2002-NMCA-067, ¶ 14 , 132 N.M. 412 , 49 P.3d 673 ; see also Turner, 2015-NMCA-068, ¶ 6 (“Res judicata[,] i.e., claim preclusion[,] is designed to relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, prevent inconsistent decisions, and encourage reliance on adjudication.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). {16} In the present c

2016“The purpose of our application of res judicata is to protect individuals from multiple lawsuits, to promote judicial economy, and to minimize the possibility of inconsistent judgments.” Moffat v. Branch, 2002-NMCA-067, ¶ 14 , 132 N.M. 412 , 49 P.3d 673 ; see also Turner, 2015-NMCA-068, ¶ 6 (“Res judicata},] i.e., claim preclusion[.] is designed to relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, prevent inconsistent decisions, and encourage reliance on adjudication.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). {16} In the present c

2014See Moffat, 2005-NMCA-103, ¶¶ 10-11 (stating that claim preclusion requires the defendant to show that each element was satisfied).

2014See Moffat, 2005-NMCA-103, ¶¶ 10-11 (stating that claim preclusion requires the defendant to show that each element was satisfied).

2014Id. at 360 . {30} The Lusby court followed the Laird court’s lead, stating: “we join the fifth circuit in concluding that the resolution of personal employment litigation does not preclude a qui tam action, in which the relator acts as a representative of the public.” Lusby, 570 F.3d at 852 (emphasis omitted).

2014Id. at 360 . {30} The Lusby court followed the Laird court’s lead, stating: “we join the fifth circuit in concluding that the resolution of personal employment litigation does not preclude a qui tam action, in which the relator acts as a representative of the public.” Lusby, 570 F.3d at 852 (emphasis omitted).

2015See In re Mahdjid B., 2015-NMSC-003, ¶ 13 , 342 P.3d 698 (“The central purpose of the Children’s Code is to protect the health and safety of children covered by its provisions while preserving the unity of the family whenever possible.” (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)). {19} We conclude that, since CYFD could not have brought its purported “claim” in the first tribunal, and since the statutory/regulatory framework intends to authorize the documentation of information related to alleged abuse and neglect that is not proven by clear and convincing evidence in court,

2013See Capitol Hill Grp., 569 F.3d at 491 (stating that “the 11 bankruptcy court was in a position to judge the quality of [the attorneys’] services”); 12 Grausz, 321 F.3d at 473 ; In re Intelogic Trace, Inc., 200 F.3d at 388 ; In re 13 Iannochino, 242 F.3d at 47 (citing 11 U.S.C. § 330 (a)(3)(A) as requiring the 14 bankruptcy court to “undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the services listed in 15 a fee application”).

2013Sommer eds., 23 16th ed.) (“The effect of the [amendment] in substitution for the predecessor language 24 does not appear to be significant.”). 9 1 omitted)); In re Intelogic Trace Inc., 200 F.3d at 388 (holding that “the award of 2 professional fees and the . . . malpractice claims concern the same nucleus of operative 3 facts and meet the transactional test,” because the bankruptcy court considered the 4 quality and nature of counsel’s services in the fee adjudication (internal quotation 5 marks and citation omitted)); Capitol Hill Grp., 569 F.3d 485, 490-93 (same). 6 {16} Notably, in each o

2013Sommer eds., 23 16th ed.) (“The effect of the [amendment] in substitution for the predecessor language 24 does not appear to be significant.”). 9 1 omitted)); In re Intelogic Trace Inc., 200 F.3d at 388 (holding that “the award of 2 professional fees and the . . . malpractice claims concern the same nucleus of operative 3 facts and meet the transactional test,” because the bankruptcy court considered the 4 quality and nature of counsel’s services in the fee adjudication (internal quotation 5 marks and citation omitted)); Capitol Hill Grp., 569 F.3d 485, 490-93 (same). 6 {16} Notably, in each o

2013See Capitol Hill Grp., 569 F.3d at 491 (stating that “the 11 bankruptcy court was in a position to judge the quality of [the attorneys’] services”); 12 Grausz, 321 F.3d at 473 ; In re Intelogic Trace, Inc., 200 F.3d at 388 ; In re 13 Iannochino, 242 F.3d at 47 (citing 11 U.S.C. § 330 (a)(3)(A) as requiring the 14 bankruptcy court to “undertake a comprehensive evaluation of the services listed in 15 a fee application”).

1994See Three Rivers Land Co. v. Maddoux, 98 N.M. 690, 694-96 , 652 P.2d 240, 244-46 (1982), overruled on other grounds by Universal Life Church v. Coxon, 105 N.M. 57 , 728 P.2d 467 (1986).

1994See Three Rivers Land Co. v. Maddoux, 98 N.M. 690, 694-96 , 652 P.2d 240, 244-46 (1982), overruled on other grounds by Universal Life Church v. Coxon, 105 N.M. 57 , 728 P.2d 467 (1986).

1994See Three Rivers Land Co. v. Maddoux, 98 N.M. 690, 694-96 , 652 P.2d 240, 244-46 (1982), overruled on other grounds by Universal Life Church v. Coxon, 105 N.M. 57 , 728 P.2d 467 (1986).

1994See Three Rivers Land Co. v. Maddoux, 98 N.M. 690, 694-96 , 652 P.2d 240, 244-46 (1982), overruled on other grounds by Universal Life Church v. Coxon, 105 N.M. 57 , 728 P.2d 467 (1986).