Venturella v. Dreyfuss

Plaintiff argued that the Court erred in dismissing his derivative claim under the doctrine of res judicata, because another court in a previous case expressly reserved the claim. Plaintiff conceded that the elements of res judicata were met, but argued that the prior court expressly reserved his right to maintain the second action. In order for a court to expressly reserve a claim that otherwise would be res judicata such that a party may raise it in a second lawsuit, the reservation must be “clearly and unmistakably communicated or directly stated.” Here, there was no express reservation in a docket entry or written order, nor intent communicated by the court on the matter. Thus, res judicata bars Plaintiff’s lawsuit.