A plaintiff sued a defendant in federal court for breach of contract, and the court entered a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The plaintiff later files a second lawsuit against the same defendant in federal court, this time alleging fraud based on the same set of facts as the original breach of contract claim. Which doctrine most likely bars the plaintiff's fraud claim?
The correct answer is claim preclusion, also known as res judicata. This doctrine prevents a party from relitigating claims that were or could have been raised in a prior lawsuit that resulted in a final judgment on the merits between the same parties. Because the fraud claim arises from the same transaction or occurrence as the original breach of contract claim, it could have been brought in the first lawsuit and is therefore barred under claim preclusion. Issue preclusion, while related, applies to specific issues of fact or law already decided, not entire claims. Double jeopardy applies only in criminal cases, and collateral estoppel is synonymous with issue preclusion but does not address the barring of entire claims.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is claim preclusion?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is the difference between claim preclusion and issue preclusion?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
Why does double jeopardy not apply in this scenario?