Law Lessons from THE ESTATE OF ELYREE SMILEY, ET AL. V. BRENDA McELNEA, ESQUIRE, App. Div., A-0245-08T2, November 2, 2009:

The entire controversy doctrine requires litigants in a civil action to raise all affirmative claims arising from a single controversy that each party might have against another party, including counterclaims and cross-claims. R. 4:30A. It is a preclusionary device, intended to prevent fractionalized litigation by insisting that a party assert all claims arising from a single controversy in a single action. Prevratil v. Mohr, 145 N.J. 180, 190 (1996). See also DiTrolio v. Antiles, 142 N.J. 253, 267 (1995) (citing Cogdell v. Hospital Center, 116 N.J. 7, 15 (1989)).

The doctrine applies to successive suits with interrelated claims. Id. at 268. “In determining whether successive claims constitute one controversy for purposes of the doctrine, the central consideration is whether the claims against the different parties arise from related facts or the same transaction or series of transactions.” Id. at 267. It is the factual context “giving rise to the controversy itself, rather than a commonality of claims, issues or parties, that triggers the requirement of joinder to create a cohesive and complete litigation.” Mystic Isle Dev. Corp. v. Perskie & Nehmad, 142 N.J. 310, 323 (1995); see also DiTrolio, supra, 142 N.J. at 267-68 (“It is the core set of facts that provides the link between distinct claims against the same or different parties and triggers the requirement that they be determined in one proceeding.”).

See related blog post published by Donald D. Vanarelli, Esq.: New Jersey Appeals Court Finds That The Entire Controversy Doctrine Applies To Pro Se Litigants

NOTE: My legal and mediation services are offered to Polish-speaking and other clients in Union, Middlesex, Somerset, Essex, Hudson, Bergen, and Morris counties in NJ.

Technorati Tags: entire-controversy-doctrine, and easy technorati tags for wordpress plugin