Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf

Citation: Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 49631-3-II Published Order.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/D2%2049631-3-II%20Published%20Order.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,767 chars

be tried.” Hadley, 144 Wn.2d at 311. “‘Washington courts focus on whether the parties to the

earlier proceeding had a full and fair hearing on the issue.’” Hadley, 144 Wn.2d at 311 (quoting

Neff v. Allstate Ins. Co., 70 Wn. App. 796, 801, 855 P.2d 1223 (1993)).

Washington courts have developed a four-part test to analyze whether a previous litigation

should have a collateral estoppel effect on a subsequent litigation. Collateral estoppel requires:

“(1) identical issues; (2) a final judgment on the merits; (3) the party against whom
the plea is asserted must have been a party to or in privity with a party to the prior
adjudication; and (4) application of the doctrine must not work an injustice on the
party against whom the doctrine is to be applied.”

Hadley, 144 Wn.2d at 311-12 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Southcenter Joint

Venture v. Nat’l Democratic Policy Comm’n, 113 Wn.2d 413, 418, 780 P.2d 1282 (1989)).

[A]pplication of collateral estoppel is limited to situations where the issue presented
in the second proceeding is identical in all respects to an issue decided in the prior
proceeding, and “where the controlling facts and applicable legal rules remain
unchanged.” Further, issue preclusion is appropriate only if the issue raised in the
second case “involves substantially the same bundle of legal principles that
contributed to the rendering of the first judgment,” even if the facts and the issue
are identical.

LeMond v. Dep’t of Licensing, 143 Wn. App. 797, 805, 180 P.3d 829 (2008) (citations omitted)

(emphasis added) (quoting Standlee v. Smith, 83 Wn.2d 405, 408, 518 P.2d 721 (1974)).

B. FINAL JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS

Billings argues that the arbitration award is not a final judgment on the merits because the