Opinion ID: 547610
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Restatement (Second) of Judgments Sec. 26

Text: 39 Bradley argues that section 26 of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments provides an alternative basis for holding that claim preclusion is inapplicable. Section 26(1) provides for an exception to the general rule of claim preclusion where: 40 (a) The parties have agreed in terms or in effect that the plaintiff may split his claim or the defendant has acquiesced therein; or 41 (b) The court in the first action has expressly reserved the plaintiff's right to maintain the second action. 42 The comment to section 26(a)(1) explains that [a] main purpose of the general rule [against claim splitting] is to protect the defendant from being harassed by repetitive actions based on the same claim. The rule is thus not applicable where the defendant consents, in express words or otherwise, to the splitting of the claim. Restatement (Second) of Judgments Sec. 26(1)(a) comment a (1982). The comment also notes that [t]he failure of the defendant to object to the splitting of the plaintiff's claim is effective as an acquiescence in the splitting of the claim. Id. 43 In Coleman v. Coleman, 361 Pa.Super. 446, 522 A.2d 1115, 1120 (1987) (en banc), the Pennsylvania Superior Court stated that [t]he law of Pennsylvania is in accord with the approach taken by [section 26(1)(a) and (b) of] the Restatement. See also Keystone Bldg. Corp. v. Lincoln Savings and Loan Ass'n, 468 Pa. 85, 360 A.2d 191 (1976) (no claim preclusion where party reserved claim in consent decree). 44 Moreover, section 86 of the Restatement (Second) of Judgments makes clear that the exceptions described in section 26 apply to the effect of a state court judgment in a subsequent federal action. The commentary to the note on section 86 describes the reservation of federal rights with the acquiescence of the opposing party as an exception to the general rule that a plaintiff in state court is ordinarily obliged to assert both its federal and state claims in state court or face claim preclusion: 45 There are ... situations where the complainant may withhold the federal claim in the state action. For example, the opposing party may acquiesce in the federal claim being split off and reserved.... If the federal claim is effectively withheld, the result is permission to split the claim. Compare Sec. 26, Comment b. 46 Restatement (Second) of Judgments Sec. 86, comment f. 47 Similar reasoning has been applied by other courts of appeals. See Calderon Rosado v. General Electric, 805 F.2d 1085 (1st Cir.1986) (relying on section 26(1)(a)); Abramson v. University of Hawaii, 594 F.2d 202 (9th Cir.1979) (because state court dismissed federal claims to allow later adjudication, no preclusion). 48 The state administrative and judicial proceedings here fit precisely within section 26. Defendants had notice by Bradley's reservation in the state proceedings and could have objected then. Defendants acquiesced in Bradley's attempt to reserve his federal claims when they failed to object to his reservation before the Secretary of Education. The Secretary expressly accepted Bradley's reservation of his rights to maintain his federal claims in federal court. The policies underlying claim preclusion are the prevention of harassment of defendants and promotion of judicial economy. In the circumstances of this case, these policies are not undermined by rejecting defendants' claim preclusion defense.