Farmer v. Hill & Barlow

USCA1 Opinion

      [NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

                 United States Court of Appeals

                     For the First Circuit











No. 97-2171



                         SHEKELA FARMER,



                      Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                v.



            HILL & BARLOW, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION,



                       Defendant, Appellee.







           APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



         [Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]







                              Before



                     Torruella, Chief Judge,

                 Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,

                   and Stahl, Circuit Judge.









     Shekela Farmer on brief pro se.

     Wilfred J. Benoit, Jr. and Goodwin, Procter & Hoar LLP on

brief for appellee.











July 31, 1998







                                                      Per Curiam.  We have carefully considered the record

  and briefs on appeal and affirm the judgment below.    A final

    judgment on the merits precludes the parties from relitigating

    claims that were or could have been raised in the original

    action.  Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980).  A single

    transaction may generate a wealth of claims under a variety of

    legal theories, but a legal theory which was neglected in the

    original action will not be entertained in a subsequent action.

    Gonzalez v. Banco Central Corporation, 27 F.3d 751, 755 (1stCir. 1994); Kale v. Combined Insurance Company, 924 F.2d 1161,

    (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 816 (1991).

       The judgment in the original action was rendered on

    the merits, even if, as the appellant states, her attorney

    wrongly neglected to oppose summary judgment.  Down v. Society

    of St. Columbans, 861 F.2d 761, 764 (1st Cir. 1988).  Even if

    such neglect occurred, the appellee cannot be made accountable

    by requiring it to re-litigate the action.  The doctrine of res

    judicata serves the important goals of fairness and efficiency

    by promoting finality and preventing vexatious or repetitive

    litigation.  Commissioner v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597 (1948).

       Affirmed.  Loc. R. 27.1.