Opinion ID: 204001
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Res judicata, or claim preclusion, bars the

Text: Silvas’ federal claims against Pellegrini Res judicata, or claim preclusion, “prevents the relitigation of all claims that a litigant had the opportunity and incentive to fully litigate in an earlier action.” Giragosian, 547 F.3d at 63 (quotation, alterations - 18 - omitted) (applying Massachusetts law). Under Massachusetts law, “[t]he operation of res judicata requires the presence of three elements: (1) the identity or privity of the parties to the present and prior actions, (2) identity of the cause of action, and (3) prior final judgment on the merits.” Andrews Robinson, 547 F.3d at 52 (quotation omitted). Those three elements are present here. First, the Silvas’ federal claims asserted against Pellegrini involve the same parties as were involved in the state foreclosure proceeding. Second, “Massachusetts deems causes of action identical for claim preclusion purposes if they grow out of the same transaction, act, or agreement, and seek redress for the same wrong.” Id. (quotation, alterations omitted). “Discrete theories of liability may constitute identical causes of action for claim preclusion purposes if they are based upon the same nucleus of operative facts.” Id. (applying Massachusetts law). “Facts forming a common nucleus are those meeting the following criteria: 1) whether the facts are related in time, space, origin or motivation; 2) whether the facts form a convenient trial unit; and 3) whether treating the facts as a unit conforms to the parties’ expectations.” Herman v. Meiselman, 541 F.3d 59, - 19 - 62-63 & 62 n.6 (1st Cir. 2008) (quotation omitted) (applying federal and Massachusetts preclusion principles, which the court noted were the same). It is clear that the Silvas’ federal claims asserted against Pellegrini in the second federal action stem from the same nucleus of operative facts as the claims at issue in the state foreclosure action — P e l l e g r ini’s use of Massachusetts’ foreclosure-by-entry mechanism to take clear title to the house at 24 Clifford Lane. Lastly, as previously discussed, the state foreclosure action is final. And the state courts’ resolution of those proceedings was based upon the merits of the issues presented. b. Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, bars the Silvas’ federal claims asserted against the Commonwealth in the Silvas’ second federal action The Massachusetts courts use several formulations interchangeably to describe the prerequisites for issue preclusion, but the Supreme Judicial Court recently stated that issue preclusion applies when (1) there was a final judgment on the merits in the prior adjudication; (2) the party against whom preclusion is asserted was a party (or in privity with a party) to the prior adjudication; and (3) the issue in the prior adjudication was identical to the issue in the current adjudication. Additionally, [4] the issue decided in the prior adjudication must have been essential to the earlier judgment. Massachusetts courts also require that [5] appellate review must have been available in the earlier case before issue preclusion will arise. - 20 - Pisnoy v. Ahmed (In re Sonus Networks, Inc., Shareholder Derivative Litig.), 499 F.3d 47, 56-57 (1st Cir. 2007) (quotations, citations omitted) (several numbers added). Those elements are met here as to the Silvas’ federal claims asserted against the Commonwealth in the second federal action. First, as previously explained, there was a final adjudication on the merits in the state foreclosure proceeding. Second, clearly the parties against whom the Commonwealth seeks to assert the prior state adjudication — the Silvas — were parties to that prior state proceeding. Third, “[i]ssue preclusion prevents relitigation of the same issues actually litigated in [the] earlier judgment.” Id. at 62. “The question is whether there is anything in the” Silvas’ second federal action “that amounts to a significant change . . . from what was presented to the state court.” Id. (quotation omitted.) There was not. Fourth, the relevant issues adjudicated in the state foreclosure proceeding — whether Pellegrini failed to give the Silvas adequate notice of her foreclosure by entry, and whether Pellegrini’s use of that state non-judicial foreclosure mechanism deprived the Silvas of their property - 21 - without due process — was essential to the state courts’ decisions upholding Pellegrini’s foreclosure by entry. Lastly, appellate review was available and pursued by the Silvas in the state foreclosure proceeding. For these reasons, Massachusetts’ collateral estoppel or issue preclusion principles bar the Silvas from pursuing the claims they assert in their second federal action against the Commonwealth. c. Conclusion as to preclusion As an alternative to dismissal on the basis of Rooker-Feldman, we conclude, for the foregoing reasons, that dismissal was appropriate based on preclusion principles.