Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitsettlementhearingsummary judgmentmalpracticeleaseclass actionappellantappellee
settlementlitigationsummary judgmentleaseappellantappellee

Related Cases

Wiesmueller v. Kosobucki, 513 F.3d 784
View Case »
Taylor v. F.D.I.C., 132 F.3d 753, 328 U.S.App.D.C. 52
View Case »
National Farmers Union Property and Cas. Co. v. District Court For City and County of Denver, 718 P.2d 1044
View Case »
Horne v. Peckham, 97 Cal.App.3d 404, 158 Cal.Rptr. 714, 207 U.S.P.Q. 527
View Case »
Greenberg v. Sher, 567 A.2d 882
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Simpson v. Chesley, Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2013 WL 6210254

Facts

The case arose from a class action lawsuit against the Catholic Diocese of Covington, Kentucky, where Appellants were part of a certified class alleging sexual abuse as children. After a fairness hearing, the Boone Circuit Court approved a settlement of approximately $84 million in January 2006. Appellants signed a General Release in 2007, acknowledging their settlement payments and releasing claims. In 2011, they filed a complaint in Kenton Circuit Court against their former class counsel, claiming they received less money than expected due to inadequate representation.

In 2007, Appellants each signed a “General Release” form acknowledging receipt of their individual settlement payments in exchange for a broad release of claims.

Issue

The main legal issue was whether Appellants' claims against their former class counsel were barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

The Kenton Circuit Court held that Appellants' claims were barred by collateral estoppel, citing in support a number of federal cases which are discussed below.

Rule

The doctrine of collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, applies when a party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate an issue in a prior action, and that issue was actually decided in that action.

The doctrine of collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, 'allows the use of an earlier judgment by one not a party to the original action to preclude relitigation of matters litigated in the earlier action.'

Analysis

The court applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel by determining that Appellants had the opportunity to object to the class action settlement and the adequacy of class counsel's representation during the fairness hearing. Since the Boone Circuit Court had already determined the settlement was fair and reasonable, the court found that Appellants were precluded from relitigating these issues in their malpractice claims.

Having reviewed the record and relevant legal authority, we agree with the Kenton Circuit Court that Appellants' claims are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

Conclusion

The Kenton Circuit Court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees was affirmed, as Appellants' claims were barred by collateral estoppel.

The order of the Kenton Circuit Court granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees is affirmed.

Who won?

Appellees prevailed in the case because the court found that Appellants' claims were barred by collateral estoppel, having had the opportunity to litigate their claims in the prior class action.

The Kenton Circuit Court held that Appellants' claims were barred by collateral estoppel, citing in support a number of federal cases which are discussed below.

You must be