Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1086_5ie6.pdf
Page Number: 8

6 

LUCKY BRAND DUNGAREES, INC. v. 
MARCEL FASHIONS GROUP, INC. 
Opinion of the Court 

preclusion applies to defenses raised in a later suit.  Com-
pare 898 F. 3d, at 241, with Hallco Mfg. Co. v. Foster, 256 
F. 3d 1290, 1297–1298 (CA Fed. 2001);  McKinnon v. Blue 
Cross  and  Blue  Shield  of  Alabama,  935  F. 2d  1187,  1192 
(CA11 1991). 

II 
A 
This case asks whether so-called “defense preclusion” is a 
valid application of res judicata: a term that now comprises 
two  distinct  doctrines  regarding  the  preclusive  effect  of 
prior litigation.  18 C. Wright, H. Miller, & E. Cooper, Fed-
eral Practice and Procedure §4402 (3d ed. 2016) (Wright & 
Miller).  The first is issue preclusion (sometimes called col-
lateral estoppel), which precludes a party from relitigating
an issue actually decided in a prior case and necessary to 
the  judgment.  Allen  v.  McCurry,  449  U. S.  90,  94  (1980); 
see Parklane Hosiery, 439 U. S., at 326, n. 5. 

The second doctrine is claim preclusion (sometimes itself 
called res judicata).  Unlike issue preclusion, claim preclu-
sion  prevents  parties  from  raising  issues  that  could  have
been raised and decided in a prior action—even if they were
not  actually  litigated.  If  a  later  suit  advances  the  same 
claim as an earlier suit between the same parties, the ear-
lier suit’s judgment “prevents litigation of all grounds for, 
or  defenses  to,  recovery  that  were  previously  available  to 
the parties, regardless of whether they were asserted or de-
termined  in  the  prior  proceeding.”  Brown  v.  Felsen,  442 
U. S. 127, 131 (1979); see also Wright & Miller §4407.  Suits 
involve  the  same  claim  (or  “cause  of  action”)  when  they 
“ ‘aris[e]  from  the  same  transaction,’ ”  United  States  v. 
Tohono O’odham Nation, 563 U. S. 307, 316 (2011) (quoting 
Kremer v. Chemical Constr. Corp., 456 U. S. 461, 482, n. 22 
(1982)),  or  involve  a  “common  nucleus  of  operative  facts,”
Restatement (Second) of Judgments §24, Comment b, p. 199
(1982) (Restatement (Second)).