CHAPTER 9 - 9-5 COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL

• Jurisdiction: United States

9-5 Collateral Estoppel

In a creative use of the defense of collateral estoppel, the Appellate Court, in Alexandru v. Strong, upheld the trial court's decision granting a motion for summary judgment of plaintiff's claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress on the basis of collateral estoppel.⁷⁵

The underlying case in Alexandru was an employment discrimination case in federal district court for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The defendant attorney withdrew from the underlying action. The court in the underlying case granted defendant employer's motion for partial summary judgment on the basis that, inter alia, the claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress was barred by the statute of limitations. The underlying trial court granted the motion.

The plaintiff then sued the defendant attorney claiming she committed legal malpractice on the basis that she did not file the negligent infliction claim on a timely basis.

The trial court in the malpractice claim in Alexandru held that the negligent infliction claim was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The Appellate Court in Alexandru agreed.⁷⁶

Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, is that aspect of res judicata which prohibits the relitigation of an issue when that issue was actually litigated and necessarily determined in a prior action between the same parties upon a different claim. . . . For an issue to be subject to collateral estoppel, it must have been fully and fairly litigated in the first action. It also must have been actually decided and the decision must have been necessary to the judgment. Furthermore, [t]o invoke collateral estoppel the issues sought to be litigated in the new proceeding must be identical to those considered in the prior proceedings.⁷⁷

The Appellate Court in Alexandru held "to assert viable malpractice claim in this case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that she would have been successful in proving the factual allegations that the supervisor sexually discriminated and retaliated against her, and that such conduct caused her emotional distress."⁷⁸ The court concluded that the collateral estoppel doctrine barred her from litigating the "factual issue" of whether "such...