9th Cir. BAP (2014 )- Unpublished - Examining California Claim Preclusion

The 9th Cir. BAP rendered an unpublished order which examined a claim preclusion argument under California Law. 

The preclusive effect of a prior state court judgment may serve as the basis for granting summary judgment. In re Imperial Corp. of Am., 92 F.3d 1503 (9th Cir. 1996); Khaligh v. Hadaegh (In re Khaligh), 338 B.R. 817, 832 (9th Cir. BAP 2006)

Under California law, “claim preclusion precludes the relitigation of a cause of action that previously was adjudicated in another proceeding between the same parties or parties in privity with them.” Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co. 28 Cal.4th 888, 896 (Cal. 2002). For claim preclusion to apply,

three requirements must be satisfied: (1) the second lawsuit must involve the same “cause of action” as the first lawsuit;(2) the first lawsuit must have resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (3) the party to be precluded must have been a party, or in privity with a party, to the first lawsuit. San Diego Police Officers’ Ass’n v. San Diego City Emps.’ Ret. Sys., 568 F.3d 725, 734 (9th Cir. 2008) (SDPOA v. SDCERS); Bullock v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 198 Cal.App.4th 543, 557 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). On occasion, California courts have inquired into fairness and public policy before applying the doctrine of claim preclusion, but unlike issue preclusion, the inquiry is not mandatory. See Kopp v. Fair Pol. Practices Com., 11 Cal.4th 607, 620–622 (Cal. 1995) (public policy considerations may warrant an exception to the claim preclusion aspect of res judicata, at least where the issue is a question of law rather than of fact).

In re Andrews (9th Cir. BAP 2014)