Opinion ID: 1194245
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Dismissal of Company Bars Adams' Claim.

Text: Adams agreed to a dismissal with prejudice of all his claims against the Company. The trial judge instructed the jury that they must find both that Adams was wrongfully discharged and that the Union breached its duty to fairly represent him. The Union asserts that the dismissal bars any action against it because of the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. To apply the doctrine of res judicata, the second suit must be identical with the first suit in four respects: There must be identity of (1) subject matter, (2) cause of action, (3) persons and parties and (4) capacity or character of the persons for or against whom the claim is made. Torres v. Village of Capitan, 92 N.M. 64, 582 P.2d 1277 (1978); City of Santa Fe v. Velarde, 90 N.M. 444, 564 P.2d 1326 (1977); Adams v. Cox, 55 N.M. 444, 234 P.2d 1043 (1951). Adams sued the Union, charging it with a breach of its duty of fair representation. This duty does not stem from a collective bargaining agreement but arises out of Sections 8(b) and 9(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 158(b), 159(a) (1976). Smith v. Local No. 25, Sheet Metal Workers Int. Ass'n, 500 F.2d 741 (5th Cir.1974). Even if both the wrongful discharge suit and the breach of duty suit were construed as involving essentially the same course of wrongful conduct, this does not indicate that both suits arise from a single cause of action. City of Santa Fe v. Velarde, supra . Adams alleged separate causes of action against the Union and the Company. Although the Company precipitated both causes of action when it discharged Adams, the Company and the Union did not engage in one united course of wrongful behavior, nor are the issues identical between Adams and the two defendants. Thus, Adams is not precluded by application of res judicata from pursuing his claim against the Union. Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, is an entirely distinct concept, which does not require that both suits be based on the same cause of action. Torres v. Village of Capitan, supra ; City of Santa Fe v. Velarde, supra . The purpose of collateral estoppel is to aid in the finality of judgments by preventing parties from endlessly relitigating the same issues under the guise of different causes of action. Collateral estoppel bars relitigation, as between parties or their privies, of ultimate facts or issues actually and necessarily decided in a prior suit. See Torres v. Village of Capitan, supra . As between Adams and the Company, it was actually and necessarily determined that Adams was not wrongfully discharged. Whether this bars relitigation of the issue of wrongful discharge between Adams and the Union depends on whether the Union was a party or privy in the dismissed cause of action. Dismissal with prejudice constitutes a complete adjudication of the merits. See Chalmers v. Hughes, 83 N.M. 314, 491 P.2d 531 (1971). The fact that the Union was originally joined in the complaint with the Company as a party-defendant is not sufficient to make the Union privy to the Company. See Phillips v. United Serv. Auto. Ass'n, 91 N.M. 325, 573 P.2d 680 (Ct.App. 1977). Persons interested in the same question or in proving the same facts are not privies. 1 A.C. Freeman, A Treatise of the Law of Judgments § 438 (1925). Nor does a final judgment entered against an individual defendant bar Adams from further action against another defendant. Montano v. Williams, 89 N.M. 86, 547 P.2d 569 (Ct.App.), aff'd, 89 N.M. 252, 550 P.2d 264 (1976). The doctrine of collateral estoppel is not intended to tie the hands of judges. Torres v. Village of Capitan, supra . When all the elements of collateral estoppel are met, the doctrine may not be applied by a judge when the purposes for which it would be used would be fundamentally unfair and would not further the aims of the doctrine. See Winters v. Lavine, 574 F.2d 46 (2d Cir.1978); The Evergreens v. Nunan, 141 F.2d 927 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 720, 65 S.Ct. 49, 89 L.Ed. 579 (1944); Eisel v. Columbia Packing Company, 181 F. Supp. 298 (D.Mass. 1960). Balanced against the purposes of collateral estoppel is the need to determine that the party against whom an estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate. See Winters v. Lavine, supra ; Eisel v. Columbia Packing Company, supra . Where the record does not indicate a reason for a dismissal with prejudice, as is true here, and the judge determined the trial should proceed, one logical inference is that the judge realized Adams had not had an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate the wrongful discharge issue. The trial judge did not abuse his discretion when he allowed the issue of wrongful discharge to be tried between Adams and the Union.