How To Prove A Tennessee Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata) Defense
In Tennessee, a defense of Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata) is defined as:
Claim preclusion, also known as res judicata, bars a person from re-litigating a claim or cause of action where the same claim has been litigated on its merits by the same parties, and a final decision has been rendered by a court.
It simply means:
One party can’t sue another twice for the same claim.
There are 4 elements of the defense:
- Element 1. The underlying judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. The underlying judgment means that a court with the proper authority made a decision in a previous case, which is important for preventing the same issue from being tried again in a new lawsuit.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The underlying judgment was issued by a state court with general jurisdiction over civil matters.
* The case was heard by a judge who was duly appointed and had the authority to render decisions in the relevant legal area.
* The parties involved in the original case were properly notified and had the opportunity to present their arguments.
* The judgment was entered in accordance with the procedural rules governing the court where the case was filed.
* The court’s decision was not appealed, indicating that it was accepted as final by all parties involved. - Element 2. The same parties were involved in both suits. Claim preclusion, or res judicata, means that if the same people are involved in two lawsuits, the outcome of the first case prevents them from re-litigating the same issue in the second case.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The plaintiff in both suits is the same individual, John Doe, who initiated the actions against the defendant.
* The defendant in both cases is XYZ Corporation, which is being sued for similar claims in each instance.
* The causes of action in both lawsuits arise from the same underlying transaction involving a contract dispute.
* The parties were represented by the same legal counsel in both lawsuits, indicating their continued relationship.
* The judgments in both cases directly involve the same parties, confirming their involvement in each legal matter. - Element 3. The same cause of action was involved in both suits. The same cause of action means that both lawsuits are based on the same underlying issue or event, so if one case has already been decided, the same claim cannot be brought up again in a new lawsuit.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* Both lawsuits arise from the same underlying incident involving a car accident that occurred on January 15, 2022.
* The plaintiff in both cases is seeking damages for personal injuries sustained during the same car accident.
* The legal claims in both suits include negligence and emotional distress related to the same event.
* The defendants in both actions are the same individuals and entities involved in the car accident.
* The relief sought in both lawsuits is for medical expenses and lost wages resulting from the same injuries. - Element 4. The underlying judgment was on the merits. The underlying judgment was based on the actual facts and issues of the case, meaning the court made a decision after fully considering the evidence and arguments, which is essential for preventing the same dispute from being relitigated in the future.
Facts that might support this element look like:
* The court issued a detailed opinion addressing the substantive issues presented in the case, demonstrating a thorough examination of the merits.
* The judgment was rendered after a full trial, where both parties had the opportunity to present evidence and arguments.
* The final ruling included specific findings of fact and conclusions of law, indicating that the court resolved the core issues of the dispute.
* The parties engaged in extensive discovery, allowing for a comprehensive review of the relevant facts before the judgment was issued.
* The judgment was not based on procedural grounds but rather on the substantive merits of the claims presented by the parties.
(See Lee v. Hall, 790 SW 2d 293 (Tenn. Court of Appeals 1990).)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Defense of Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata), having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge necessary to effectively present your defense.
Prove Your TN Claim Preclusion (Res Judicata) Defense
U.S. Civil Cases Only