- 24 -
the sense of ‘identity of interests’ has been broadly construed
and applied. * * * Privity between the United States and the
Commissioner of Internal Revenue is also recognized by this
Court.” Gammill v. Commissioner, supra at 614. Similarly,
Government officials or employees who are sued in their official
capacities are generally considered to be in privity with the
Government or their governmental agencies. Bloomquist v. Brady,
894 F. Supp. 108, 114 (W.D.N.Y. 1995) (Secretary of the Treasury
was in privity with the United States); see Gregory v. Chehi, 843
F.2d 111, 120 (3d Cir. 1988); Thurston v. United States, 810 F.2d
438, 444 (4th Cir. 1987); Town of Seabrook v. New Hampshire, 738
F.2d 10, 11 (1st Cir. 1984).
Respondent is permitted to use collateral estoppel in the
defensive sense because petitioner’s case in the District Court
was against respondent, at least initially, and named individual
employees of respondent. The fact that petitioner did not
include respondent as a defendant in his District Court amended
complaint does not bar the application of collateral estoppel
because respondent has privity with its employees. See supra
note 7. Furthermore, the captions of the order and judgment of
the District Court include respondent, and the judgment
specifically provides: “IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED
that Plaintiff Rodolfo Lizcano TAKE NOTHING against Defendants
the United States of America, the Internal Revenue Service, the
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008