Lourdes Fontanillas Lopez v. Morell Bauza Cartagena & Dapena, LLC, et al.

In Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (2001), this Court reaffirmed that the claimpreclusive effect of a federal court judgment is determined by federal common law and, thus, it is a federal question reviewable by this Court. It is this Court that has the last word on the claim-preclusive effect of all federal judgments and the States must accord them the effect that this Court prescribes. Id. Thus, this Court has ruled that federal claim preclusion does not bar a subsequent suit on claims predicated on events postdating the filing of the initial complaint. The First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits have held the same. This Court has also noted the exception to federal claim preclusion set forth in Restatement (Second) of Judgments §26(l)(c) (Am. Law. Inst. 1982) which, together with Restatement (Second) of Judgments §25, Comment e (Am. Law. Inst. 1982), dictates that when a plaintiff brings both federal and state law claims to the federal court and prays the federal court to assume supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, but the federal court declines and dismisses the state claims without prejudice, the federal judgment would not constitute claim preclusion (the here-relevant aspect of res judicata) with respect to the state law claims in a subsequent suit. The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Federal Circuits as well as the Puerto Rico Supreme Court and other high courts have held the same. Claim preclusion does not bar such claims because the claims in the second case have not been adjudicated on the merits. In the