claim preclusion doctrine in California

2025Res judicata and collateral estoppel A. Res judicata, or claim preclusion “The claim preclusion doctrine, formerly called res judicata, ‘prohibits a second suit between the same parties on the same cause of action.’” (Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73 , 91.) “Claim preclusion, the ‘“‘primary aspect’”’ of res judicata, acts to bar claims that were, or should have been, advanced in a previous suit involving the same parties.” (DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824 (DKN Holdings).) “Claim preclusion ‘prevents relitigation of the same cause of action

2025Res judicata and collateral estoppel A. Res judicata, or claim preclusion “The claim preclusion doctrine, formerly called res judicata, ‘prohibits a second suit between the same parties on the same cause of action.’” (Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73 , 91.) “Claim preclusion, the ‘“‘primary aspect’”’ of res judicata, acts to bar claims that were, or should have been, advanced in a previous suit involving the same parties.” (DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824 (DKN Holdings).) “Claim preclusion ‘prevents relitigation of the same cause of action

2025Governing Principles “The claim preclusion doctrine, formerly called res judicata, ‘prohibits a second suit between the same parties on the same cause of action.’ [Citation.] ‘Claim preclusion arises if a second suit involves (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties [or their privies] (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit.’” (Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73 , 91.) “To determine whether two proceedings involve identical causes of action for purposes of claim preclusion, California courts have ‘consistently applied the “primar

2025Res judicata and collateral estoppel A. Res judicata, or claim preclusion “The claim preclusion doctrine, formerly called res judicata, ‘prohibits a second suit between the same parties on the same cause of action.’” (Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73 , 91.) “Claim preclusion, the ‘“‘primary aspect’”’ of res judicata, acts to bar claims that were, or should have been, advanced in a previous suit involving the same parties.” (DKN Holdings LLC v. Faerber (2015) 61 Cal.4th 813, 824 (DKN Holdings).) “Claim preclusion ‘prevents relitigation of the same cause of action

2025Claim preclusion The doctrine of claim preclusion “acts to bar claims that were, or should have been, advanced in a previous [lawsuit] involving the same parties.” (DKN Holdings, supra, 61 Cal.4th at p. 824 .) Claim preclusion arises “if a second suit involves (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit. [Citations.] If claim preclusion is established, it operates to bar relitigation of the claim altogether.” (Ibid.) “[I]f a plaintiff prevails in an action, the cause is merged into the judgment and may not be asserted in

2025That is, the City asserts: “This conclusion is not altered simply because the claims there and here arose under different contracts (the [Development Agreement] versus the Ground Lease” and “This conclusion does not change because certain alleged harms continued after the conclusion of [the federal action].” Mycogen hardly avails the City, the court there noting that a party cannot bring successive actions in violation of the claim preclusion doctrine where it “brought a second action seeking the legal remedy of damages based on the same breach of contract.” (Mycogen, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 8

2023As a general matter under the doctrine of claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits bars parties or parties in privity from ‘ “successive litigation of the very same claim . . . as the earlier [action].” ’ [Citation.] The driving principle behind the claim preclusion doctrine is that the parties have had a ‘ “full and fair opportunity to litigate” ’ claims alleged in the first action.” (Guerrero v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1091, 1098 (Guerrero); see Taylor v. Sturgell (2008) 553 U.S. 880, 892 (Taylor).) “Unlike issue preclusion, which applies only

2023As a general matter under the doctrine of claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits bars parties or parties in privity from ‘ “successive litigation of the very same claim . . . as the earlier [action].” ’ [Citation.] The driving principle behind the claim preclusion doctrine is that the parties have had a ‘ “full and fair opportunity to litigate” ’ claims alleged in the first action.” (Guerrero v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1091, 1098 (Guerrero); see Taylor v. Sturgell (2008) 553 U.S. 880, 892 (Taylor).) “Unlike issue preclusion, which applies only

2023(Hardy, supra, 232 Cal.App.4th at p. 804 .) In so holding, the Hardy court reasoned that “[t]he United States Supreme Court has determined . . . that rule 41(b) is not a claim-preclusion rule; it applies only to the district court’s internal procedures. [Citation.]” (Ibid., citing Semtek, supra, 531 U.S. at pp. 497, 503, 506, italics added.) The Hardy court concluded that it could not “simply look to rule 41(b) to determine whether dismissal of the federal action was an adjudication on the merits.” ( Hardy, supra, at p. 805 .) It ultimately held (as we will discuss, post), that because the fed

2023F. Conclusion Guided by the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Semtek, supra, 531 U.S. 497 , we conclude that the voluntary dismissal filed in the second federal suit did not bar Appellants’ present lawsuit under the doctrine of claim preclusion.

2021(See Brinton v. Bankers Pension Services, Inc. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 550, 556 .) We review de novo the trial court’s finding that Mendoza’s claims against Penske are barred by claim preclusion.

2014(LeVine, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 573 [“summary judgment was properly granted because [the defendant’s] liability is dependent upon the commission of an underlying tort by [a medical partnership] and its partners, a claim decided adversely to [the] plaintiff in the prior arbitration”]; Brinton, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at pp. 557-558 [“since defendant’s liability is merely derivative . . . , it is unnecessary for [the] defendant to have been a party to the prior action to assert a claim preclusion defense in this case”]; see also LeVine, at pp. 574-576; Sartor, supra, 136 Cal.App.3d at p. 328

2026For instance, the doctrine of claim preclusion (also known as res judicata) “provides that ‘a valid, final judgment on the merits precludes parties or their privies from relitigating the same “cause of action” in a subsequent suit.’”7 (City of Oakland v. Oakland Police & Fire Retirement System (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 210 , 227–228.) This doctrine exists to “protect the integrity of courts by fostering finality and minimizing the potential for conflicting judgments, which serves to promote public confidence in the judicial process.” (Guerrero v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2018)

2026For instance, the doctrine of claim preclusion (also known as res judicata) “provides that ‘a valid, final judgment on the merits precludes parties or their privies from relitigating the same “cause of action” in a subsequent suit.’”7 (City of Oakland v. Oakland Police & Fire Retirement System (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 210 , 227–228.) This doctrine exists to “protect the integrity of courts by fostering finality and minimizing the potential for conflicting judgments, which serves to promote public confidence in the judicial process.” (Guerrero v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2018)

2022(Boeken, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 798 [“for purposes of applying the doctrine of res judicata, the phrase ‘cause of action’ has a more precise meaning” than counts which state the same cause of action according to different legal theories (italics added)]; Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. (2002) 28 Cal.4th 888, 904 [concluding that, based on the application of the primary right theory, a second lawsuit was based on the same cause of action as the first and therefore barred by res judicata]; In re Marriage of Garcia (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1334, 1345 [“when a court applies the doctrine of claim precl

2017(Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 788, 797-798 (Boeken).) Indeed, when a court applies the doctrine of claim preclusion, "cause of action" has a specific meaning — namely, "the right to 13 obtain redress for a harm suffered, regardless of the specific remedy sought or the legal theory (common law or statutory) advanced." (Id. at p. 798; accord, Mycogen, supra, 28 Cal.4th at p. 904 [the primary right must "be distinguished from the legal theory" and "from the remedy sought"]; Balasubramanian v. San Diego Community College Dist. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 977, 991 (Balasubramanian)

2026“Claim preclusion prevents relitigation of entire causes of action. [Citations.] Claim preclusion applies only when ‘a second suit involves (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties [or their privies] (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit.’” (Samara v. Matar (2018) 5 Cal.5th 322 , 326- 327; accord, Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73 , 91.) Where the doctrine of claim preclusion applies, it “bars litigation not only of matters that were actually litigated, but also of matters that could have been litigated as part of the same cau

2025The doctrine of claim preclusion “prevents relitigation of entire causes of action. [Citations.] Claim preclusion applies only when ‘a second suit involves (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties [or their privies] (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit.’” (Samara v. Matar (2018) 5 Cal.5th 322, 326-327 .) Claim preclusion does not apply here because two of the actions Alarcon cites were dismissed on procedural grounds, and therefore they were not decided on the merits.

2022(Ibid.) The Shine court held that “[b]ecause reporting-time pay is a form of wages, a claim for reporting-time pay could have been raised in the [prior] action.” (Ibid.) “The fact that no claim for reporting- time pay was alleged in [the prior action] d[id] not alter [the court’s] determination that the same primary right, to seek payment of wages due, was involved in both . . . case[s].” (Ibid.) Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562 (Villacres) similarly found an earlier class claim settlement barred a plaintiff’s PAGA claims under the doctrine of claim preclusion.

2022(Ibid.) The Shine court held that “[b]ecause reporting-time pay is a form of wages, a claim for reporting-time pay could have been raised in the [prior] action.” (Ibid.) “The fact that no claim for reporting- time pay was alleged in [the prior action] d[id] not alter [the court’s] determination that the same primary right, to seek payment of wages due, was involved in both . . . case[s].” (Ibid.) Villacres v. ABM Industries Inc. (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 562 (Villacres) similarly found an earlier class claim settlement barred a plaintiff’s PAGA claims under the doctrine of claim preclusion.

2022But since defendant’s liability is merely derivative of [prior defendant], it is unnecessary for defendant to have been a party to the prior action to assert a claim preclusion defense in this case.”]; and LeVine, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at pp. 576‒579 [rejecting application of Vandenberg where non-party to prior arbitration proceeding was held to be in privity with prior defendant under theories of aiding and abetting and conspiracy liability].) In sum, we agree with the trial court that Dr. Bogue’s due process rights were not violated.

2014(LeVine, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 573 [“summary judgment was properly granted because [the defendant’s] liability is dependent upon the commission of an underlying tort by [a medical partnership] and its partners, a claim decided adversely to [the] plaintiff in the prior arbitration”]; Brinton, supra, 76 Cal.App.4th at pp. 557-558 [“since defendant’s liability is merely derivative . . . , it is unnecessary for [the] defendant to have been a party to the prior action to assert a claim preclusion defense in this case”]; see also LeVine, at pp. 574-576; Sartor, supra, 136 Cal.App.3d at p. 328

2022As discussed ante, in PAGA cases “[t]he government entity on whose behalf the plaintiff files suit is always the real party in interest in the suit.” (Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 382 .) Therefore, Acevedo and Le constitute the same “plaintiff” for PAGA purposes, because “[i]n bringing [a PAGA] action, the aggrieved employee acts as the proxy or agent of state labor law enforcement agencies, representing the same legal right and interest as those agencies.” (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 993, 1003 ; Arias, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 986 [a

2022As discussed ante, in PAGA cases “[t]he government entity on whose behalf the plaintiff files suit is always the real party in interest in the suit.” (Iskanian, supra, 59 Cal.4th at p. 382 .) Therefore, Acevedo and Le constitute the same “plaintiff” for PAGA purposes, because “[i]n bringing [a PAGA] action, the aggrieved employee acts as the proxy or agent of state labor law enforcement agencies, representing the same legal right and interest as those agencies.” (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1756, AFL-CIO v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 993, 1003 ; Arias, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 986 [a

2020Analysis Under federal law, “[t]he preclusive effect of a judgment is defined by claim preclusion and issue preclusion, which are collectively referred to as ‘res judicata.’ Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, a final judgment forecloses ‘successive litigation of the very same claim, whether or not relitigation of the claim raises the same issues as the earlier suit.’ (New Hampshire v. Maine (2001) 532 U.S. 742, 748 [ 149 L.Ed.2d 968 ].) Issue preclusion, in contrast, bars ‘successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essen

2020Analysis Under federal law, “[t]he preclusive effect of a judgment is defined by claim preclusion and issue preclusion, which are collectively referred to as ‘res judicata.’ Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, a final judgment forecloses ‘successive litigation of the very same claim, whether or not relitigation of the claim raises the same issues as the earlier suit.’ (New Hampshire v. Maine (2001) 532 U.S. 742, 748 [ 149 L.Ed.2d 968 ].) Issue preclusion, in contrast, bars ‘successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essen

2023(Ibid.; accord, Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73 , 91 (Kim).) “The claim preclusion doctrine . . . ‘prohibits a second suit between the same parties on the same cause of action.’ [Citation.] ‘Claim preclusion arises if a second suit involves (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit.’ ” (Kim, at p. 91.) Claim preclusion bars “not . . . only issues that were actually litigated but also issues that could have been litigated.” (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Assns. v. City of Los Angeles (20

2015(Federation of Hillside & Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 126 Cal.App.4th 1180, 1202 .) Under the issue preclusion doctrine, a party is barred from relitigating an issue in a second action if the identical issue was actually litigated and determined, even if the causes of action are different.

2023(See Hidden v. Jordan (1881) 57 Cal. 184, 186-187 [plaintiff could bring action seeking mesne profits where the defendant failed to comply with a judgment ordering the defendant to surrender to possession of the property]; see also Colvig v. RKO General, Inc. 232 Cal.App.2d 56, 74-75 (1965) [former employee could maintain an action for damages where the employer failed to comply with a judgment ordering employer to restore employee to his prior position].) In addition, the doctrine of claim preclusion only “serves as a bar to all causes of action that were or could have been litigated in the f

2021(See McCready v. Whorf (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 478, 482 .) There is no claim preclusion here because Gonzalez did not challenge the prosecution’s cause of action on the special circumstance.

2022Practices Com. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 607, 682 (conc. opn. of Kennard, J.) [summarizing federal claim preclusion and issue preclusion principles].) “Unlike issue preclusion, which applies only to issues that were actually litigated, claim preclusion applies not just to what was litigated, but more broadly to what could have been litigated.” (Guerrero v. Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation (2018) 28 Cal.App.5th 1091, 1098 [discussing and applying federal preclusion law]; see Capitol Hill Group v. Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLC (D.C.

2022Practices Com. (1995) 11 Cal.4th 607, 622 , [“‘“when the issue is a question of law rather than of fact, the prior determination is not conclusive . . . if injustice would result”’”]; see also People v. Barragan (2004) 32 Cal.4th 236, 256 [“We have also recognized that public policy considerations may warrant an exception to the claim preclusion aspect of res judicata, at least where the issue is a question of law rather than of fact”].) In his opening brief, Acevedo reiterates the same arguments he made to challenge application of the claim preclusion doctrine in the first place to challenge

1999But since defendant's liability is merely derivative of Thon's, it is unnecessary for defendant to have been a party to the prior action to assert a claim preclusion defense in this case. ( Sartor v. Superior Court, supra, 136 Cal.App.3d at pp. 326-328, 187 Cal.Rptr. 247 [confirmed arbitration award finding corporation liable only for defective solar panel gaskets barred subsequent action against corporation's *474 employees alleging fraud and negligence for other alleged construction defects]; City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 143, 154-155 , 149 Cal.Rptr. 320 [prior j

1999But since defendant's liability is merely derivative of Thon's, it is unnecessary for defendant to have been a party to the prior action to assert a claim preclusion defense in this case. ( Sartor v. Superior Court, supra, 136 Cal.App.3d at pp. 326-328, 187 Cal.Rptr. 247 [confirmed arbitration award finding corporation liable only for defective solar panel gaskets barred subsequent action against corporation's *474 employees alleging fraud and negligence for other alleged construction defects]; City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 143, 154-155 , 149 Cal.Rptr. 320 [prior j

1999But since defendant's liability is merely derivative of Thon's, it is unnecessary for defendant to have been a party to the prior action to assert a claim preclusion defense in this case. ( Sartor v. Superior Court, supra, 136 Cal.App.3d at pp. 326-328, 187 Cal.Rptr. 247 [confirmed arbitration award finding corporation liable only for defective solar panel gaskets barred subsequent action against corporation's *474 employees alleging fraud and negligence for other alleged construction defects]; City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 143, 154-155 , 149 Cal.Rptr. 320 [prior j

1999But since defendant's liability is merely derivative of Thon's, it is unnecessary for defendant to have been a party to the prior action to assert a claim preclusion defense in this case. ( Sartor v. Superior Court, supra, 136 Cal.App.3d at pp. 326-328, 187 Cal.Rptr. 247 [confirmed arbitration award finding corporation liable only for defective solar panel gaskets barred subsequent action against corporation's *474 employees alleging fraud and negligence for other alleged construction defects]; City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (1978) 85 Cal.App.3d 143, 154-155 , 149 Cal.Rptr. 320 [prior j

2026“Claim preclusion prevents relitigation of entire causes of action. [Citations.] Claim preclusion applies only when ‘a second suit involves (1) the same cause of action (2) between the same parties [or their privies] (3) after a final judgment on the merits in the first suit.’” (Samara v. Matar (2018) 5 Cal.5th 322 , 326- 327; accord, Kim v. Reins International California, Inc. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 73 , 91.) Where the doctrine of claim preclusion applies, it “bars litigation not only of matters that were actually litigated, but also of matters that could have been litigated as part of the same cau