What is the test for claiming preclusion in a personal injury action?

To invoke claim preclusion, an opponent must demonstrate that the parties, cause of action (the invasion of a "primary right"), and issues are identical, and that the same evidence would support the judgment in both cases. (Pitts v. City of Sacramento (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 853, 856 (Pitts).) An elementary exception to the application of claim preclusion is where a plaintiff "was unable . . . to seek a certain remedy or form of relief in the first action because of the limitations on the subject matter jurisdiction of the courts or restrictions on their authority to entertain . . . forms of relief in a single action, and the plaintiff desires in the second action to . . . seek that remedy or form of relief." (Rest.2d Judgments, 26.)

A protective order specific to elder abuse is of relatively recent vintage, so case authority expounding on the nature of the remedy is unavailable. However, in the context of the more generic protective order against "harassment" (Code Civ. Proc., 527.6), which is an analogous procedure, Byers v. Cathcart (1997) 57 Cal.App.4th 805 (Byers) explained why the process of obtaining a protective order made it inappropriate for resolving a boundary dispute. Protective orders are of limited duration and must be renewed, which means the order is not a final determination of rights and duties. (Byers, at p. 810.) It is an expedited and summary adjudication, limited to only injunctive relief, in contrast with an ordinary civil case seeking an injunction in which the opportunities for

Page 5