Court Opinion

ID: 9634747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:22:22.872581+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:09.603607
License: Public Domain

GALLAGHER, Senior Judge,
concurring:
I would have disposed of this appeal on res judicata grounds if only because of public interest considerations. The doctrine of res judicata establishes that once a claim is finally adjudicated “the doctrine of claim preclusion will operate to prevent the same parties from ‘ “relitigation of not only those matters actually litigated but also those which might have been litigated in the first proceeding.” ’ ” Stutsman v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 546 A.2d 367, 369-70 (D.C.1988) (quoting Jonathan Woodner Co. v. Adams, 534 A.2d 292, 295 n. 6 (D.C.1987) (quoting Goldkind v. Snider Bros., Inc., 467 A.2d 468, 473 n. 10 (D.C. 1983))). In Stutsman, we stated, “It is the factual nucleus, not the theory upon which a plaintiff relies, which operates to constitute the cause of action for claim preclusion purposes.” Id. at 370.
Those considerations, which apply here, led me to conclude that this proceeding should be decided against appellant on res judicata grounds. I believe it is not in the public interest to permit such relitigation here.
Since, however, the court has determined to decide this case on the merits, I agree with the court’s reasoned opinion and join in it.