claim preclusion doctrine in Delaware

2022No. N22C-05-002 PRW July 12, 2022 Page 3 of 19 Mr. Williams’s complaint was barred by res judicata.7 Agreeing with the Defendants, this Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the issues alleged in the then-pending complaint before it stemmed from the same operative facts as those alleged in the already dismissed Court of Common Pleas complaint.8 On appeal, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that the matter was barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, or res judicata.9 A party’s claim is precluded “based on the same cause of action after a court has ent

2022No. N22C-05-002 PRW July 12, 2022 Page 3 of 19 Mr. Williams’s complaint was barred by res judicata.7 Agreeing with the Defendants, this Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the issues alleged in the then-pending complaint before it stemmed from the same operative facts as those alleged in the already dismissed Court of Common Pleas complaint.8 On appeal, the Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed the dismissal, agreeing that the matter was barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, or res judicata.9 A party’s claim is precluded “based on the same cause of action after a court has ent

2020Citigroup sought to enjoin the second arbitration “on the ground that ADIA’s new claims were barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, or res judicata, because they 10 Id. 11 Id. at 140. 12 Id. at 139 (citing Local 103 of International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers v. RCA Corp., 516 F.2d 1336, 1340 (3d Cir. 1975)). 13 776 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2015). 3 were or could have been raised in the first arbitration.”14 The Second Circuit concluded that arbitrators should decide the claim- preclusive effect of the judgment confirming the first arbitration award.

2019While that confirmation proceeding was pending, ADIA filed a second arbitration “again asserting claims of 91 Id. at 140 . 92 Id. at 139 . 93 776 F.3d 126, 131 (2d Cir. 2015). 94 Id. at 127 . 23 breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”95 Citigroup sought to enjoin the second arbitration “on the ground that ADIA’s new claims were barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, or res judicata, because they were or could have been raised in the first arbitration.”96 The Second Circuit’s explained that its conclusion that the arbitrators should decide the

2020Co., LLC v. EV3, Inc., 937 A.2d 1275, 1288 (Del. 2007) (recognizing “that the Superior Court must give the parties at least ten days’ notice of its intent to convert a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment”). 16 Super.

2020Co., LLC v. EV3, Inc., 937 A.2d 1275, 1288 (Del. 2007) (recognizing “that the Superior Court must give the parties at least ten days’ notice of its intent to convert a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment”). 16 Super.

2020Citigroup sought to enjoin the second arbitration “on the ground that ADIA’s new claims were barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, or res judicata, because they 10 Id. 11 Id. at 140. 12 Id. at 139 (citing Local 103 of International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers v. RCA Corp., 516 F.2d 1336, 1340 (3d Cir. 1975)). 13 776 F.3d 126 (2d Cir. 2015). 3 were or could have been raised in the first arbitration.”14 The Second Circuit concluded that arbitrators should decide the claim- preclusive effect of the judgment confirming the first arbitration award.

2020The latter provides a better reference to examine claim splitting. 22 LaPoint v. AmerisourceBergen Corp., 970 A.2d 185, 193 (Del. 2009). 6 previous adjudication.23 Two claims that come from a common nucleus of facts arise from the same transaction.24 If the plaintiff knows or could have known those common facts at the time of the first action, then the doctrine of claim preclusion bars the claim in the second action.25 Under the transactional approach, resolving the first suit may bar a claim in the second, even if the plaintiff pursues a different substantive theory of recovery than in the fi

2012Compare Henik, 433 F.Supp.2d. at 381 (applying both res judicata and collateral estop-pel to Rule 23.1 determination) and Bed Bath & Beyond, 2007 WL 4165389, at *8 (holding that relitigation of demand futility is precluded under the doctrine of claim preclusion) with Sonus Networks, 499 F.3d at 60-62 (holding that a Rule 23.1 determination only gives rise to issue preclusion and not claim preclusion). .

2012See, e.g., Arduini, 2012 WL 893874 , at *3 (holding that privity was satisfied in giving preclusive effect to Rule 23.1 dismissal because "plaintiffs in a shareholder derivative action represent the corporation”); Bed Bath & Beyond, 2007 WL 4165389 , at *7 (finding privity met for preclusive application of Rule 23.1 dismissal because "[t]he claims alleged and any proceeds from a prior action do not belong to the shareholder plaintiffs; rather, they belong to the corporation itself”); Hanson, 2007 WL 5186795 , at *5 (holding privity existed; "because shareholder derivative suits are brought on