Legal Definitions - single-controversy doctrine

The single-controversy doctrine, also known as the entire-controversy doctrine, is a legal principle that requires parties involved in a dispute to bring all related claims against each other in a single lawsuit. Its primary purpose is to promote judicial efficiency, prevent the harassment of defendants by multiple lawsuits, and ensure fairness by resolving all aspects of a dispute at once. If a party fails to include a related claim in the initial lawsuit, they may be barred from bringing that claim in a separate lawsuit later.

Here are some examples to illustrate this doctrine:

• Business Contract Dispute: Imagine a small business, "TechSolutions," hires a marketing agency, "AdGenius," to run a year-long digital advertising campaign. After six months, TechSolutions believes AdGenius has failed to meet agreed-upon performance metrics, has overcharged for certain services, and has also used unauthorized stock photos in their ads, leading to potential copyright infringement issues for TechSolutions.

  How it illustrates the doctrine: If TechSolutions decides to sue AdGenius for failing to meet performance metrics, the single-controversy doctrine would require them to also include their claims regarding the alleged overcharging and the unauthorized use of stock photos in that *same* lawsuit. All these issues stem from the same overarching contract and business relationship. If TechSolutions only sued for the performance metrics and later tried to file a separate lawsuit for the overcharging, a court might dismiss the second lawsuit, arguing that all related claims should have been brought together in the initial action.

• Real Estate Transaction: A buyer, Ms. Chen, purchases a house from Mr. Davis. After moving in, Ms. Chen discovers a significant leak in the roof that Mr. Davis did not disclose, and also finds that a custom-built shed, which was explicitly included in the purchase agreement, has been removed from the property.

  How it illustrates the doctrine: If Ms. Chen decides to sue Mr. Davis for the undisclosed roof leak, the single-controversy doctrine would compel her to also include her claim for the missing shed in that *same* lawsuit. Both issues arise directly from the single real estate transaction between them. If she were to sue only for the roof leak and then later attempt to file a separate lawsuit for the missing shed, a court could rule that she should have brought all related claims concerning the property sale together in the initial action.

• Employment Termination: An employee, Mr. Rodriguez, is terminated from his job. He believes his termination was discriminatory based on his national origin. Additionally, he claims that his employer failed to pay him for 100 hours of overtime he worked in the months leading up to his termination and did not reimburse him for several business expenses.

  How it illustrates the doctrine: If Mr. Rodriguez decides to sue his former employer for national origin discrimination, the single-controversy doctrine would require him to also include his claims for unpaid overtime and unreimbursed business expenses in that *same* lawsuit. All these claims arise from his employment relationship and its termination. If he were to sue only for discrimination and then later attempt to file a separate lawsuit for the unpaid wages and expenses, a court could rule that he should have brought all related claims together in the initial action.