About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Case Citations [1] (July 2018 through August 2019)

handle is hein.ali/relwdmts0039 and id is 1 raw text is: JUDGMENTS CHAPTER 3. FORMER ADJUDICATION TOPIC 2. PERSONAL JUDGMENTS TITLE B. EFFECT ON THE ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ACTION § 49. Judgment for Defendant Not on the Merits C.A.5, 2018. Com. (a) cit. in ftn. and in case cit. in ftn. Employee brought lawsuits in both state and federal court against employer, alleging that employer had illegally discriminated against her on the basis of gender or race. After the state trial court dismissed the action as time barred, the district court granted defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that, under the doctrine of resjudicata, the state-court dismissal barred plaintiff s federal action. This court affirmed, applying the rules governing res judicata of the forum state. The court noted that, while Restatement of Judgments § 49, Comment a, provided that a limitations-based dismissal in one state court did not bar the claim in another state court, § 49 was revised into Restatement Second of Judgments § 19, which stated that this was increasingly no longer the case in many courts. Thompson v. Dallas City Attorney's Office, 913 F.3d 464, 469. TITLE D. WHAT CONSTITUTES THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION (What Claims are Extinguished by Judgment) § 62. Splitting Cause of Action-Judgment for Plaintiff or Defendant Cal.App.2018. Cit. in disc.; com. (j) cit. in sup. and in ftn. Unsuccessful applicant for a job with state department of corrections and rehabilitation brought an action in federal court against department, alleging discriminatory failure-to-hire in violation of federal and state law; after the federal court dismissed applicant's state-law claims on Eleventh Amendment grounds, effectively limiting his potential money recovery to the equitable remedy of backpay, he refiled those claims in state court. Following the federal court's entry of a final judgment in favor of applicant, the state court dismissed his state-law claims as barred by claim preclusion under California's primary-rights doctrine. Reversing and remanding, this court held that the preclusive effect of the federal judgment was governed by federal law, which followed the Restatement Second of Judgments, rather than by California law. The court explained that, under Restatement Second of Judgments § 26 and principles set forth in Restatement of Judgments § 62, claim preclusion did not apply, because applicant was seeking a remedy in this action that was not permitted in the prior action. Guerrero v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 239 Cal.Rptr.3d 726, 737, 739. TITLE E. EFFECT ON OTHER CAUSES OF ACTION-COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL § 70. Questions of Law COPYRIGHT 02019 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most