Cited by

To establish claim preclusion, the defendant must prove “(1) an identity of claims in the suit in which a judgment was entered and the current litigation, (2) a final judgment on the merits in the previous litigation, and (3) identity or privity between parties in the two suits.” ¶ 5 (App. 2013) (–70 ¶ 14 (2006)).

The superior court found that Giersz’s lawsuit was barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, which prevents a plaintiff from bringing a lawsuit when a prior final “judgment on the merits was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction and the matter now in issue between the same parties or their privities was, or might have been, determined in the former action.” ¶ 5 (App. 2013) (citations and 3 GIERSZ v. WALMART Decision of the Court internal quotation marks omitted).

was, or might have been, determined in the former action.” ¶ 5 (App. 2013) (cleaned up).

& Source, ¶ 14 (2006) (“We deal today with the issue of claim preclusion, formerly referred to as res judicata.”); n.2 (App. 2013).

In determining whether a subsequent claim arises from the same transaction as the first, we consider “whether the underlying facts are 1 The parties refer to res judicata, but we use “claim preclusion.” ¶ 3, n.2 (App. 2013).

"We are bound to affirm if the superior court was 'correct in its ruling for any reason.'" ¶ 4 (App. 2013) ( n. 7, ¶ 17 (App. 2006)).

Brimley suggests that we may affirm the superior court because while the Jirauches presented evidence of their mortgage payments, they presented no evidence of the property’s fair market rental price, see, ¶ 4 (App. 2013) (stating that an appellate court may affirm on any basis supported by the record).

“We are bound to affirm if the superior court was correct in its ruling for any reason.” ¶ 4 (App. 2013) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

¶ 4 (App. 2013) (recognizing that appellate courts will affirm the superior court for any reason that supports the decision).

¶43 To establish the defense of claim preclusion, “a party must prove: (1) an identity of claims in the suit in which a judgment was entered and the current litigation, (2) a final judgment on the merits in the previous litigation, and (3) identity or privity between the parties in the two suits.” ¶ 5 (App. 2013) (citation and punctuation omitted).