Opinion ID: 195467
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Identicality of Causes of Action.

Text: 13 To determine whether sufficient subject matter identity exists between an earlier and a later suit, federal courts employ a transactional approach. See Kale, 924 F.2d at 1166; Manego v. Orleans Bd. of Trade, 773 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1084, 106 S.Ct. 1466, 89 L.Ed.2d 722 (1986); see also Restatement (Second) of Judgments Sec. 24 (1992). This approach recognizes that a valid and final judgment in an action will extinguish subsequent claims with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action arose. Manego, 773 F.2d at 5 (quoting Restatement Sec. 24). 14 To understand the transactional approach, it is necessary to appreciate that a single transaction or series of transactions can--and often does--give rise to a multiplicity of claims. Phrased another way, [a] single cause of action can manifest itself in an outpouring of different claims, based variously on federal statutes, state statutes, and the common law. Kale, 924 F.2d at 1166. The necessary identity will be found to exist if both sets of claims--those asserted in the earlier action and those asserted in the subsequent action--derive from a common nucleus of operative facts. See id. This principle pertains no matter how diverse or prolific the claims themselves may be. See 1B J. Moore, Federal Practice p 0.410 at 350 (2d ed. 1993) (explaining that the 'cause of action' or 'claim' ... is bounded by the injury for which relief is demanded, and not by the legal theory). It follows that the omission of a particular statement of claim from the original suit is of no great consequence; if the transaction is the same and the other components of the test are satisfied, principles of res judicata will bar all claims that either were or could have been asserted in the initial action. See Kale, 924 F.2d at 1166; Manego, 773 F.2d at 5. The key is to define the underlying injury. 15 This definitional process is not a purely mechanical exercise. What factual grouping constitutes a 'transaction', and what groupings constitute a 'series', are [matters that should] be determined pragmatically, taking into consideration a wide variety of relevant factors, including but not limited to such things as whether the facts are related in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as a unit conforms to the parties' expectations.... Aunyx, 978 F.2d at 7 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments Sec. 24). 16 Given these criteria, we believe that there is sufficient identicality here between the earlier and later actions to satisfy the requisite standard. Without exception, appellants' claims stem from the same series of transactions as the claims asserted in the initial litigation. Although the individual sales contracts are different, all of them arise out of a single course of conduct undertaken by a band of allied defendants. By like token, while each purchaser acquired a different lot at a different price, all the lots are part of the same development and all were sold by means of the same ballyhoo. At the very least, the two sets of claims are closely related in time, origin, and geography. 17 Moreover, if merged, the two sets of claims would form a well-integrated unit. The same kinds of land sale contracts that the Rodriguez plaintiffs attacked under ILSFDA and sought to characterize as securities for purposes of their RICO claim, see Rodriguez, 990 F.2d at 9, underlie appellants' current claims. To be sure, appellants have negotiated the procedural minefield more nimbly than their predecessors, and have, therefore, assembled a more varied assortment of legal theories; but their claims--including both those that replicate the Rodriguez plaintiffs' claims and those that do not--implicate the same series of interconnected transactions that gave rise to the causes of action litigated in the earlier lawsuit. In short, both sets of claims, though dressed in different legal garb, grow out of a common nucleus of operative facts. No more is exigible. 18