US Project Management, Inc. v. PARC ROYALE EAST DEV., INC.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding res judicata was no bar even “[tjhough both actions involve breach of contract, [because] U.S. Project is now suing based on a subsequent breach of the Consulting Agreement”
• concluding “[t]he defense of res judicata is inapplicable” because although “both actions involve breach of contract, U.S. Project is now suing based on a subsequent breach of the Consulting Agreement (failure to pay the incentive fee
• though plaintiff sought money damages for both breaches, the damages resulted from failure to pay under two separate provisions in the agreement
• no identity when causes of action were based on two different breaches of an agreement
• “[W]e find no common identity of the cause of action because the evidence necessary to maintain the first suit for breach of contract is different from the evidence needed in the current suit.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).