Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

Re: double jeopardy in civil litigation

No.

Re: double jeopardy in civil litigation

Double jeopardy is a Constitutional protection that does not apply in civil cases. However, don't get your hopes up. A certain Latin phrase, "res judicata", which means "the thing has already been decided," might apply. If the parties and issues are the same, the losing litigant might be out of luck. Consult with an attorney in your area to make an accurate assessment of the situation.

Re: double jeopardy in civil litigation

There is no rule of "double jeopardy" in civil cases (one person suing another usually for money damages). However, it is possible that the case that was decided in the "wrong" jurisdiction might not legally be an improper jurisdiction.

It is, however, possible that the decision, if truly not brought in a proper jurisdiction, could be attacked and/or set aside/vacated.

You should run this by an attorney including bringing whatever documents you have with you for the attorney to review. This would include any documents that form a contract that was the subject of the suit or the address of all defendants, etc.

I would be happy to discuss this matter with you.

J. Caleb Donner

LEGAL WARRIORS (R)

Re: double jeopardy in civil litigation

Your question isn't entirely clear about what happened, but I will do my best. As Mr. Cohen and Mr. Donner have said, double jeopardy only comes up in criminal cases and not civil so it is not an issue for you.

If your case was tried in a California court which had no jurisdiction, then the judgment would be void. The case could be brought again in a court with jurisdiction, though you might first need a ruling that the first court lacked jurisdiction before the second court would be willing to proceed.

But cases which are brought in the wrong jurisdiction seldom reach trial before someone notices the problem. Why do you believe the court lacks jurisdiction? It may be that the case was brought in the wrong venue but within the right jurisdiction, in which case the defect would probably have been waived and the judgment would probably be allowed to stand. The case then could not properly be brought again somewhere else.

On the other hand, if the case was dismissed by the first court upon a finding that it lacked jurisdiction, it can be brought again in the proper court.