Thе present action is the fourth lawsuit to emerge from the disputes between former business partners Cyrus Katzen and Efrain and Jacqueline Guerrerо concerning the construction of the Pan American Shopping Center in northern Virginia. The District Court held that the doctrine of res judicata precluded аny further pursuit of the appellants’ claims and granted the ap-pellees’ motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
On June 8, 1978, the appellee, Dr. Kat-zen, filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia, 1 alleging that Dr. Guerrero had unlawfully caused the dissolution of their business partnership. That court found that Dr. Guerrero had wrongfully dissolved the partnership and that Dr. Katzen had wrongfully failed to provide Dr. Guerrero with adequate access tо the partnership books and records. The partnership was dissolved, and Dr. Katzen was appointed winding-up partner under the continuing supеrvision of the court. Dr. Guerrero was permitted to select a representative to monitor the partnership books and records.
In August 1979, Dr. Kаtzen sought the court’s approval of the sale of the shopping center to appellee, Prudential Insurance Company (“Prudential”). Dr. Guerrero opposed this motion, which was nonetheless granted, and twice moved for its reconsideration. In his first motion for reconsidеration, Dr. Guerrero alleged that he had been prevented from examining the partnership books and records. He made a similar chаrge in his second motion for reconsideration on May 6,1980, and further asserted that the terms of the sale of the shopping center to Prudential were unfair and that Dr. Katzen had mismanaged the construction of the shopping center and thus wasted the asset. The Virginia court held that the sale contract with Prudential was valid, that Dr. Guerrero had received reasonable access to the books and records of the partnership in order to ascertain the value of the shopping center, and that Dr. Katzen had not wasted the asset or breached his fiduсiary duty during the winding-up process. In November 1980, this order was appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia which rejected the petition of аppeal in June 1981.
The present ease was filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia Circuit on August 27, 1982. Dr. Guerrero sought damages from Dr. Katzen and Prudential for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and conspiracy to defraud based on alleged concealment of рartnership books and records, mismanagement of construction, and unfairness in the terms and *508 nature of the sale of the shopping center to Prudential. The District Court held that these claims had been or could have been litigated in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, and granted the appellees’ motion for summary judgment pursuant to an application of the doctrine of res judicata.
I.
“It is now settled that a federal court must give to a stаte-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment under the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered.”
Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education,
Under the doctrine of
res judicata,
or claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving the same parties or their privies bars subsequent relitigation of the same cause of aсtion. Judgment in a prior action is conclusive in the latter, “not only as to every question which was decided, but also as to every other matter which the parties might have litigated and had determined.”
Kemp v. Miller,
In applying the doctrine of
res judicata,
Virginia courts employ a fact-based approach in their definition of the term “сause of action.” A cause of action is “an assertion of particular legal rights which have arisen out of a definable factuаl transaction.”
Bates v. Devers,
II.
Appellants contend that the discovery of two pieces of relevant evidence after judgment was entered in the Virginia aсtion precludes the application of
res judicata.
Although recent Virginia law has not explicitly addressed this issue, we note that newly discovered evidence normally does not prevent the application of
res judicata. Dreyfus v. First National Bank of Chicago,
*509 III.
A successor to an interest in property is in privity with its рrior owner and may rely on a previous judgment regarding that interest.
Spiker v. Capitol Milk Producers Co-op, Inc.,
IV.
Finally, counsel for Dr. Guerrero revealed at oral argument that the parties have continued to litigate this matter in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, contesting the final accounting of their ill-fated partnership. Intending no encouragement for this cоurse of action, we would simply note that Dr. Guerrero’s claims of fraud based on newly discovered evidence would more properly hаve been raised in the state court forum rather than by filing a separate lawsuit in federal court.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the District Court properly granted summary judgment to the appel-lees in this action. We therefore affirm.
So ordered.
Notes
. Katzen v. Guerrero, Chancery No. 57929, Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia. In addition to the present case, the appellants filed Guerrero v. Katzen, No. 78-783-A (E.D.Va.1978) and Guerrero v. Katzen, Chancery No. 62813, Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia. These actiоns were dismissed on March 2, 1979 and September 4, 1979, respectively.
.
See also Croatan Books, Inc. v. Baliles,
In
Diamond State Iron Co. v. Alex K. Rarig Co.,