Opinion ID: 1622008
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Substantial Identity of Parties

Text: The parties in the Black litigation are substantially identical to the parties involved in this dispute. Our caselaw requires that there is a substantial identity of parties in the two actions. Ex parte Ford Motor Credit Co., 772 So.2d 437, 440 (Ala.2000). Substantial identity requires that the `parties be identical, sometimes referred to as the mutuality of estoppel requirement.' Stewart v. Brinley, 902 So.2d 1, 10 (Ala.2004) (quoting McMillian v. Johnson, 878 F.Supp. 1473, 1520 (M.D.Ala.1995)). `An exception is made to this requirement for parties in privity with a party to the prior action.' Stewart, 902 So.2d at 10 (quoting McMillian, 878 F.Supp. at 1520) (emphasis omitted). A party is deemed to be in privity with a party to a prior action when there is `an identity of interest in the subject matter of litigation.' Stewart, 902 So.2d at 11 (quoting Hughes v. Martin, 533 So.2d 188, 191 (Ala.1988), quoting in turn Issue Preclusion in Alabama, 32 Ala. L.Rev. 500, 521 (1981)). The County argues that the Greene parties were all class members of one of the subclasses in the Black litigation. In fact, Jim Phillips, one of the Greene parties involved in this dispute, acted as a class representative in the Black litigation for the subclass that filed the motion challenging the validity of the resolution. The remaining Greene parties who were not members of that particular subclass share that same interest in the subject matter of the dispute, namely, invalidating the resolution. This Court has stated: ``A person may be bound by a judgment even though not a party to a suit if one of the parties to the suit is so closely aligned with his interests as to be his virtual representative.'' Gonzalez, LLC v. DiVincenti, 844 So.2d 1196, 1203 (Ala.2002) (quoting Green v. Wedowee Hosp., 584 So.2d 1309, 1315 (1991), quoting other cases). In the Black litigation, the subclass of Jefferson County deputies and the subclass of Jefferson County employees had an identical interest in seeking the invalidation of the resolution because, under the terms of the resolution, members of both subclasses would have been required to forfeit certain discretionary benefits in order to opt back into the retirement system. Therefore, the third element of res judicata is met in this case because the parties in this case are substantially identical to the parties involved in the Black litigation. [14]