MIAMI BUSINESS LITIGATION: DOCTRINES OF RES JUDICATA AND COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL

A lawsuit is generally considered over once a litigant obtains judgment in its favor assuming no appeal is taken and no post-judgment collection issues exist. However, the losing party is often left unsatisfied. Therefore, the loser may try to “re-do” the lawsuit by suing the defendant again using slightly different claims or lodging the lawsuit in a different jurisdiction. The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel can prevent a litigant from having a second bite of the apple. The Miami business litigation attorneys of the Mavrick Law Firm represent businesses and their owners in breach of contract litigation and related claims of fraud, non-compete agreement litigation, trade secret litigation, trademark infringement litigation, employment litigation, and other legal disputes in federal and state courts and in arbitration.

Res judicata, also known as “claim preclusion,” is a judicial doctrine that prevents parties from relitigating issues decided in a previous action. Anderson v. Vanguard Car Rental USA Inc., 60 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). “Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment issued by a court of competent jurisdiction bars a subsequent suit between the same parties based upon the same cause of action.” Felder v. State, Dep’t of Management Services, Div. of Retirement, 993 So. 2d 1031 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). A court of competent jurisdiction has been defined to include courts in other states and even other countries. See, e.g., Republic of Ecuador v. Dassum, 346 So. 3d 1250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022) (finding res judicata barred lawsuit because issues were litigated to final determination in Ecuador).

Florida law requires a party arguing res judicata to establish four “identities.” They are (1) identity of the thing sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of the parties; (4) identity of the quality in the person for or against whom the claim is made. Saadeh v. Stanton Rowing Foundation, Inc., 912 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). The first identity (the identity of the thing sued for) applies if the remedies requested in the previous and subsequent lawsuits are the same and are based on the same facts. See Accardi v. Hillsboro Shores Improvement Ass’n, Inc., 944 So. 2d 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (finding no identity in the things sued for because the prior lawsuit requested equitable relief to prevent a continued violation of a restrictive covenant, while the subsequent lawsuit requested monetary damages based on nuisance and trespass stemming from violations of the restrictive covenant).

The second identity (identity of the cause of action) does not require the causes of action in the prior lawsuit and new lawsuit to be identical. So long as the causes of action arise out of the same set of facts, this identity is satisfied. Gordon v. Gordon, 59 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1952). Comparably, the third identity (the identity of the parties) does not require the parties in the new suit and old suit to be identical. Res judicata may bar a claim brought by a new party who is in privity with a party that brought the prior lawsuit. See Pearce v. Sandler, 219 So. 3d 961 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017) (“In its broadest sense, privity is defined as ‘mutual or successive relationships to the same right of property, or such an identification of interest of one person with another as to represent the same legal right.’”).

Collateral estoppel is a legal doctrine similar to res judicata and often asserted in conjunction with res judicata. Like res judicata, collateral estoppel bars the re-litigation of certain issues previously litigated. However, collateral estoppel has a narrower affect. While res judicata can be a complete bar to a subsequent lawsuit, collateral estoppel only bars the re-litigation of specific issues within a subsequent lawsuit. Collateral estoppel has its own elements, which are “(1) the identical issues were presented in a prior proceeding; (2) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the prior proceeding; (3) the issues in the prior litigation were a critical and necessary part of the prior determination; (4) the parties in the two proceedings were identical; and (5) the issues were actually litigated in the prior proceeding.” Topps v. State, 865 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 2004). A litigant will need to satisfy each of these elements to prevent the opposing party from asserting the same issue(s) brought in a prior lawsuit.

The losing party in a lawsuit could look for ways to sue again. For example, a former employer that lost its first non-compete lawsuit against a former employee, may try to manufacture a new non-compete lawsuit against that same former employee for violating the same non-compete agreement in a different manner. Res judicata or collateral estoppel are important legal doctrines that could thwart the re-litigation of those issues.

The Miami business litigation lawyers of the Mavrick Law Firm also represent clients in Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton, and Palm Beach. This article does not serve as a substitute for legal advice tailored to a particular situation.