Second Filing of Same Suit Precluded as Res Judicata
It Doesn’t Pay to Sue Twice
Post number 5379
Posted on June 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Susan Cheung & another v. Thomas B. Puschak & another, No. 24-P-1451, Appeals Court of Massachusetts (June 12, 2026) the plaintiffs, Susan Cheung and Christopher Cheung, filed an initial complaint against Dr. Thomas Puschak and Carol Puschak in December 2022. The complaint alleged that Dr. Puschak committed malpractice, sexually assaulted the plaintiffs, attempted to poison Christopher, and engaged in insurance fraud.
The Superior Court ordered the plaintiffs to provide a more definite statement, and when they failed to comply, the first action was involuntarily dismissed in March 2023. The dismissal was with prejudice, and the plaintiffs did not appeal.
About six months later, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint asserting the same allegations against the same defendants. A second judge entered summary judgment for the defendants on res judicata grounds.
Law
Claim preclusion, or res judicata, bars relitigation of claims that were or could have been adjudicated in a prior proceeding where there has been a valid final judgment. Under Massachusetts law, claim preclusion requires three elements: identity or privity of the parties, identity of the cause of action, and a prior final judgment on the merits. A dismissal with prejudice under Mass. R. Civ. P. 41 (b) generally operates as an adjudication on the merits unless an exception applies or the judgment specifies otherwise.
Discussion / Analysis
The Appeals Court concluded that all three elements of claim preclusion were satisfied. The identity of the parties was not disputed because both actions involved the same plaintiffs and defendants. The causes of action were also identical because both complaints arose from the same alleged conduct: malpractice, sexual assault, attempted poisoning, and insurance fraud. Finally, the first action had ended in a dismissal with prejudice after the plaintiffs failed to comply with a court order requiring a more definite statement. Because Rule 41 (b) treats such a dismissal as an adjudication on the merits, and because no exception applied, the prior dismissal was a final judgment for claim preclusion purposes.
In the first matter, the plaintiffs argued, as they did in the second matter, that Dr. Puschak committed malpractice, sexually assaulted the plaintiffs, attempted to poison Christopher, and engaged in insurance fraud. The claims are identical.
Last, the Superior Court’s dismissal with prejudice of the first matter is a final judgment on the merits and satisfies the third element. Dismissal of a complaint, other than a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, failure to join a necessary party, or improper damages, operates as an adjudication upon the merits unless either the dismissal is pursuant to statute or the judgment of dismissal specifies otherwise. None of those exceptions applies here, and thus the prior judgment operates as a final adjudication upon the merits.
Conclusion
The Appeals Court affirmed the summary judgment for the defendants. The plaintiffs’ second lawsuit was barred by res judicata because it involved
ZALMA OPINION
Failure to provide a definite statement in a lawsuit resulting in dismissal with prejudice is a final judgement that precludes the same allegations again brings into play res judicata which defeats the new suit. If the plaintiffs were serious about their suit against Dr. Thomas Puschak they needed to comply with the original court orders. That failure caused a dismissal with prejudice to the original suit and the next try.
(c) 2026 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://gbarryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://Cwww.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the InsuranceClaims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk.
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Failure to Plead Sufficient Facts to State a Facially Plausible Claim Defeats Suit
Post number 5378
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/court-applies-law-written-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-itwrc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
Screwed by Insurance Brokers Judge Allows Plaintiff to Continue some of His Suit
In Wilfredo Cruz, et al. v. Bay Point Insurance LLC, et al., Civil Action No. GLR-25-44, United States District Court, D. Maryland on June 10, 2026 dealt with a suit brought by Wilfredo Cruz who alleged that Bay Point Insurance LLC, Karl Smith, and David Small committed insurance fraud in connection with insurance policies brokered for Cruz’s trucking business, W&DC General Contractor, LLC.
Cruz claimed Defendants represented that they could procure workers’ compensation, commercial general liability, motor cargo, and physical damage coverage even though Bay Point Insurance and Small allegedly were not licensed to transact insurance in Virginia at the relevant time. After ...
Failure to Plead Sufficient Facts to State a Facially Plausible Claim Defeats Suit
Post number 5378
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/court-applies-law-written-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-itwrc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5350 posts.
Screwed by Insurance Brokers Judge Allows Plaintiff to Continue some of His Suit
In Wilfredo Cruz, et al. v. Bay Point Insurance LLC, et al., Civil Action No. GLR-25-44, United States District Court, D. Maryland on June 10, 2026 dealt with a suit brought by Wilfredo Cruz who alleged that Bay Point Insurance LLC, Karl Smith, and David Small committed insurance fraud in connection with insurance policies brokered for Cruz’s trucking business, W&DC General Contractor, LLC.
Cruz claimed Defendants represented that they could procure workers’ compensation, commercial general liability, motor cargo, and physical damage coverage even though Bay Point Insurance and Small allegedly were not licensed to transact insurance in Virginia at the relevant time. After ...
Arson and Misrepresentation Sufficient Ground to Deny Claim
Post number 5377
Bad Faith Requires A Showing Of More Than Bad Judgment Or Negligence
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/bad-faith-requires-conscious-doing-wrong-because-zalma-esq-cfe-xxkdc and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Bad Faith Requires the Conscious Doing of a Wrong Because of Dishonest Purpose or Moral Obliquity
Posted on June 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Arson and Misrepresentation Sufficient Ground to Deny Claim
Post number 5377
Bad Faith Requires A Showing Of More Than Bad Judgment Or Negligence
In Jonika K. Nelson v. Allstate Vehicle & Property Insurance Co., et al, No. 4:26-CV-17-RPC-DAS, United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division (June 15, 2026) under Mississippi law, bad faith requires facts showing that the insurer lacked an arguable or legitimate basis for denying the claim or acted willfully, maliciously, or with gross and reckless disregard for the insured’s rights....
