Erie Indemnity Company v. Troy Stephenson, et al.

This Court has emphasized that a previous court’s judgment bars any claims between the parties or their privies that “involve a common nucleus of operative facts.” Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc. v. Marcel Fashions Grp., Inc., 590 U.S. 405, 412 (2020) (quotation marks omitted). Respondents filed an action against Petitioner that pleaded the same claim, based on the same legal theory and the same unchanged operative facts, as those pleaded in earlier suits that resulted in multiple adverse final judgments. In an effort to avoid the preclusive effect of those prior judgments, Respondents purported to limit their challenge to Petitioner’s identical ongoing, continuing conduct in 2019 and 2020—years that postdated the earlier suits. Respondents did not allege any material change in fact. The district court that had adjudicated those prior actions held that Respondents’ claims here were precluded. But, in conflict with this Court’s precedents and multiple other circuits’ decisions, the Third Circuit held that Respondents had escaped preclusion simply by alleging that the same previously adjudicated conduct continued into additional years. The question presented is: When a plaintiff challenges the same ongoing, continuing conduct that was fully adjudicated in an earlier suit, does the mere passage of time foreclose claim and issue preclusion?