Silva v. City of New Bedford, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22070

June 16, 2007 nightclub incident in New Bedford involving Silva and two police officers.
Silva I (2007) sued Officers Gibney and Sauve, settling via Rule 68 judgment; City not named.
Silva sought to add City as defendant in Silva I but was denied to amend.
Silva II (2009) sued City and officers for the same underlying conduct.
District court dismissed Silva II on the basis of claim preclusion; Silva appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Silva II is barred by claim preclusion.	Silva could not have pleaded City claims in Silva I.	City claims are not barred since City was not party to Silva I.	Yes; relatedness supports preclusion.
Whether the City and officers are sufficiently related for privity.	Officers are not a sufficiently related defendant.	Officers' actions bind the City; closely related parties for preclusion.	Yes; privity/close relation exists.
Whether the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act presentment timing affects preclusion.	Presentment satisfied; City could be added by amendment.	Motion to amend denied; no unfairness in result.	No unfairness; preclusion remains.
Whether the transactional approach supports a common nucleus of operative facts.	Causes in both suits arise from June 16, 2007 incident.	Different legal theories do not negate common facts.	Yes; there is a common nucleus of operative facts.

Airframe Sys., Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 601 F.3d 9 (1st Cir. 2010) (defensive non-mutual claim preclusion elements)
Breneman v. U.S. ex rel. F.A.A., 381 F.3d 33 (1st Cir. 2004) (transactional approach to relatedness of claims)
Gonzalez v. Banco Cent. Corp., 27 F.3d 751 (1st Cir. 1994) (common nucleus of operative facts standard)
Mass. School of Law at Andover, Inc. v. Am. Bar Ass'n, 142 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 1998) (transactional approach to claim preclusion relations)
Negrón-Fuentes v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, 532 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) (privity/close relation for purposes of preclusion)