Res Judicata And Settlement Agreements
According to the doctrine of ”exclusion” (res judicata), a judgment on the merits of an earlier remedy prohibits a second appeal involving the same parties or their remedies on the basis of the same plea. Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n.5 (1979). The exclusion application blocks both the claims that have been filed, as well as those that could have been filed in the previous appeal. Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashions Grp., Inc., 140 pp. Ct. 1589, 1594-95 (2020).
The Tribunal quashed the applicant`s application because the documents he was handing over were disclosed during the first proceeding. There is therefore no new evidence to allow the Tribunal to set aside the earlier judgment and the approval decision. The Tribunal stated that it was in the public interest for the litigation to be final, which would be further strengthened once the parties entered into a settlement agreement. In addition, a transaction agreement should only be compromised for as clear a reason as possible. The High Court`s decision in the recent Ackerman v. Thornhill e.a. is noteworthy with respect to disclosure and transaction disputes. The mere application of legal principles by the court is not surprising, let alone because there is no evidence that Party City had committed to making its website accessible in the confidential transaction agreement – the relief sought in the case of Pennsylvania. Public transaction agreements requiring a company to make its website accessible or an authorization decree in which a court orders a company to make its website accessible are much more likely to discourage further action on website accessibility. Companies that are under a court order to make their websites accessible have a strong argument that any subsequent action in ADA Title III is controversial, because the only relief that can be obtained in such an action – aid to intrusiveness – has already been ordered.
Complainants will also likely find companies that have made a contractual commitment to make their websites accessible in order to be less attractive targets, because the work may be completed, while the second action is pending, which is litigant.