§6.14 Res Judicata

Under the doctrine of res judicata, a small claims court judgment is a bar to a second suit on the same cause of action. [Pitzen v Superior Court (2004) 120 CA4th 1374, 1381; Allstate Ins. Co. v Mel Rapton, Inc. (2000) 77 CA4th 901, 905.]

A small claims judgment for a plaintiff, however, is not given collateral estoppel issue-preclusion effect on other actions against the defendant. It would be unfair to have plaintiff’s choice of small claims court bind the defendant when the record does not fully reflect the issues raised and decided there. [Sanderson v Niemann (1941) 17 C2d 563, 573–574.]

But a defendant may raise collateral estoppel issue preclusion if the defendant prevailed in a previous small claims action. There is no rationale for refusing to afford collateral estoppel effect to issues litigated and decided against a plaintiff. Fundamental fairness dictates that a plaintiff who chose to litigate in small claims court cannot cite the informality of that forum to gain a second chance to litigate a decided issue. Relitigating decided issues is also inconsistent with the public policy that a small claims plaintiff is bound by an adverse judgment. [Pitzen v Superior Court (2004) 120 CA4th 1374, 1386.]