Court Opinion

ID: 2965454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:40:30.739487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:17.733380
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]
                 United States Court of Appeals
                     For the First Circuit

No. 97-2171

                         SHEKELA FARMER,

                      Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                v.

            HILL & BARLOW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION,

                       Defendant, Appellee.

           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

         [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]

                              Before

                     Torruella, Chief Judge,
                 Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
                   and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                
                                

     Shekela Farmer on brief pro se.
     Wilfred J. Benoit, Jr. and Goodwin, Procter & Hoar LLP on
brief for appellee.

July 31, 1998

                                                      Per Curiam.  We have carefully considered the record
  and briefs on appeal and affirm the judgment below.    A final
    judgment on the merits precludes the parties from relitigating
    claims that were or could have been raised in the original
    action.  Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980).  A single
    transaction may generate a wealth of claims under a variety of
    legal theories, but a legal theory which was neglected in the
    original action will not be entertained in a subsequent action. 
    Gonzalez v. Banco Central Corporation, 27 F.3d 751, 755 (1stCir. 1994); Kale v. Combined Insurance Company, 924 F.2d 1161,
    (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 816 (1991).   
       The judgment in the original action was rendered on
    the merits, even if, as the appellant states, her attorney
    wrongly neglected to oppose summary judgment.  Down v. Society
    of St. Columbans, 861 F.2d 761, 764 (1st Cir. 1988).  Even if
    such neglect occurred, the appellee cannot be made accountable
    by requiring it to re-litigate the action.  The doctrine of res
    judicata serves the important goals of fairness and efficiency
    by promoting finality and preventing vexatious or repetitive
    litigation.  Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597 (1948). 
       Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.