GP Vincent II v. The Estate of Edgar Beard

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Environmental Law
  • Date Filed: 05-17-2023
  • Case #: No. 21-16555
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Hawkin, C.J. for the Court; Bea, C.J.; & Nguyen, C.J.
  • Full Text Opinion

To determine whether a previous action involved the same claim or cause of action as a later lawsuit, the Court looks at four factors: (1) whether the rights or interests established by the prior judgement would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action, (2) whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions, (3) whether the two suits involve infringement of the same right, and (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts. Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005).

GP Vincent II (GP) took over the obligation to purchase and clean up a contaminated property pursuant to the California Land Reuse and Revitalization Act. GP sued the previous owners of the property to recover costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”). The district court granted the previous property owners’ motion to dismiss on the grounds of claim preclusion, and GP appealed. To determine whether a previous action involved the same claim or cause of action as a later lawsuit, the Court considers: (1) whether the rights or interests established by the prior judgement would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action, (2) whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions, (3) whether the two suits involve infringement of the same right, and (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts. Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court found the previous case focused on the property adjacent to the one at issue here. Due to several considerations regarding the CERCLA, the Court reasoned that the claims at issue should be narrowly construed and determined the previous action involving a contribution claim was distinct from GP’s cost recovery claim. The Court concluded that there was not a sufficient identity of claims and GP’s complaint was incorrectly dismissed. REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Advanced Search


Back to Top