140 Conn. App. 608
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiff sought a writ of mandamus against the city of Shelton and Kulacz (city’s engineer) to issue permits for construction of a single-family house; mandamus granted for permits.
- Plaintiff then filed inverse condemnation and §1983 claims against the city and Kulacz alleging due process/property rights violations.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that res judicata barred the later action.
- Trial court denied the motion, finding no res judicata because facts surfaced during mandamus, relief sought differed, and parties differed.
- Appellate court held the city is barred by res judicata for the present action, but Kulacz personally is not; judgment reversed as to city and affirmed as to Kulacz, with remand for Kulacz’s individual claims.
- Court remanded for proceedings on plaintiff’s claims against Kulacz in his individual capacity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does res judicata bar the city’s claims here? | City was the same party; merits of mandamus and damages were in one transaction. | Present action arises from same nucleus of operative facts as mandamus action. | Yes, barred as to city. |
| Does res judicata bar the claims against Kulacz individually? | Kulacz is in privity with the city and acted under color of law. | Kulacz sued in his individual capacity; not in privity with mandamus defendant. | No, not barred against Kulacz individually. |
| Does the mandamus judgment merge with and bar the present action against the city? | Mandamus sought different relief; facts undiscovered later do not defeat bar. | Present action arises from same transaction and operative facts; plaintiff had opportunity to address. | Yes, mandamus judgment bars present action against the city. |
Key Cases Cited
- Himmelstein v. Bernard, 139 Conn. App. 446 (2012) (res judicata scope limited to the operative facts of the prior adjudication)
- Carr v. Bridgewater, 224 Conn. 44 (1992) (second action may be barred if same transaction and adequate opportunity to litigate)
- Kelly v. New Haven, 275 Conn. 580 (2005) (privity rules for official-capacity vs individual-capacity suits)
- McCue v. Birmingham, 88 Conn. App. 630 (2005) (single cause of action encompasses related claims; res judicata may apply)