Opinion ID: 2590584
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Collateral Estoppel as to the Robinson Suit

Text: Maroun argues the district court in the Robinson suit erred in applying collateral estoppel to bar his claims because the issues decided by the district court in the Wyreless suit were not the same issues alleged in the Robinson suit. However, Maroun's amended complaint alleges the same claims for non-payment of wages and compensation and the same shareholder liability claim as alleged in the Wyreless suit. The only difference is the addition of Skouras, Evans, Dunhill and Rousseau as defendants, which Maroun had been unable to do in the Wyreless suit. Whether collateral estoppel bars the relitigation of issues adjudicated in prior litigation between the same parties is a question of law upon which we exercise free review. Rodriguez v. Dep't of Corr., 136 Idaho 90, 92, 29 P.3d 401, 403 (2001) (citations omitted). Collateral estoppel serves the purpose of protecting litigants from the burden of re-litigating an identical issue with the same party or his privy, of promoting judicial economy by preventing needless litigation, of preventing inconsistent decisions and of encouraging reliance on adjudications. Anderson v. City of Pocatello, 112 Idaho 176, 183, 731 P.2d 171, 178 (1986) (citations omitted). Collateral estoppel is also known as issue preclusion. Eastern Idaho Agric. Credit Ass'n v. Neibaur, 133 Idaho 402, 407, 987 P.2d 314, 319 (1999). This Court requires five elements be evident in order to bar re-litigation of an issue determined in a prior proceeding: (1) The party against whom the earlier decision was asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue decided in the earlier case; (2) the issue decided in the prior litigation was identical to the issue presented in the present action; (3) the issue sought to be precluded was actually decided in the prior litigation; (4) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior litigation; and (5) the party against whom the issue is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the litigation. Rodriguez v. Dep't of Corr., 136 Idaho at 93, 29 P.3d at 404. In both the Wyreless suit and the Robinson suit, the fundamental issue is whether Maroun can pierce the corporate veil and hold the shareholders or owners of Wyreless liable for damages Maroun claims. Maroun received a full and fair opportunity to litigate this issue during the Wyreless suit. This issue was resolved against Maroun when the jury determined in the special verdict that failure to disregard the corporation and hold the shareholders liable would not result in an injustice. That verdict had a preclusive effect because it was a determination by a jury that Maroun was not entitled to pierce the corporate veil. The fact that he is now seeking to do the same against other purported shareholders is irrelevant; the verdict applies to Maroun's shareholder liability claim, not just the individual shareholders that were parties to the Wyreless suit. Therefore, the district court's dismissal of the Robinson suit based on collateral estoppel is affirmed.