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.
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime.
After ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
Crime Requires 121-151 Months of Imprisonment
Post 5486
Posted on September 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Mr. Baiyewu Is Liable For The Loss Resulting From Acts Directly Attributable To Him And For The Loss Resulting From The Reasonably Foreseeable Acts Of Others Taken In Furtherance of the Criminal Activity
In United States Of America v. Oluwasegun Baiyewu, CRIMINAL No. 21-395 (RAM), United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico (August 26, 2026) the court dealt with a case after on October 20, 2021, a grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned a single-count Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). About a year and a half later, on March 31, 2023, a grand jury returned a single-count Superseding Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu and four co-defendants with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
CONVICTION
Baiyewu was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The charged conspiracy, ...
Crime Requires 121-151 Months of Imprisonment
Post 5486
Posted on September 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Mr. Baiyewu Is Liable For The Loss Resulting From Acts Directly Attributable To Him And For The Loss Resulting From The Reasonably Foreseeable Acts Of Others Taken In Furtherance of the Criminal Activity
In United States Of America v. Oluwasegun Baiyewu, CRIMINAL No. 21-395 (RAM), United States District Court, D. Puerto Rico (August 26, 2026) the court dealt with a case after on October 20, 2021, a grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned a single-count Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). About a year and a half later, on March 31, 2023, a grand jury returned a single-count Superseding Indictment charging Mr. Baiyewu and four co-defendants with conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
CONVICTION
Baiyewu was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to commit money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). The charged conspiracy, ...
