Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04204/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04204-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

.. 

FILED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Unitld $ i}~lf-(A\lrt(?f ~-ppea'ls ~l'e!it.h (';,•r:;,t 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

WEBER MEMORIAL CARE ) 

CENTER, INC., ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

STATE OF UTAH, DEPARTMENT ) 

OF HEALTH; MICHAEL STAPLEY, ) 

Acting Director, Department ) 

of Health, in his official ) 

capacity, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

SEP 18 1991 

ll,OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-4204 

(D.C. No. 84-C-206-S) 

(D. Utah) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiff-appellant Weber Memorial Care Center ("Weber") 

appeals a district court order adopting the report and 

recommendation of a United States magistrate and holding that 

Weber's claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. On 

appeal, Weber argues that the doctrine of res judicata should not 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-4204 Document: 010110090159 Date Filed: 09/18/1991 Page: 1 
. . .. 

apply because Weber did not receive a full and fair opportunity to 

litigate its claims in Utah state courts. We exercise 

jurisdiction under 28 u.s.c. § 1291 and affirm. 

In its federal court complaint, Weber asserts three causes of 

action. First, Weber asserts that the State of Utah's medical 

assistance program violates federal law -- namely 42 U.S.C. 

§ 1396a and 42 C.F.R. §§ 442.250, 447.252. Second, Weber asserts 

a breach of a contract between Weber and defendant State of Utah 

Department of Health relating to Weber's participation in the 

state's medical assistance program. Third, Weber alleges 

defendants have violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by denying Weber 

constitutional due process and federal statutory rights. 

We apply a de novo standard in reviewing whether the district 

court properly applied the doctrine of res judicata. May Y..!.. 

Parker-Abbott Transfer~ Storage, Inc., 899 F.2d 1007, 1009 (10th 

Cir. 1990). 

The federal Full Faith and Credit Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, 

is based on the sixth amendment's Full Faith and Credit Clause and 

provides that a state's "judicial proceedings ... shall have the 

same full faith and credit in every court within the United States 

and its Territories and Possessions as they have by law or usage 

in the courts of such State, Territory or Possession from which 

they are taken." Therefore, we must look to Utah law to determine 

whether Weber's claims are barred by preclusion principles. 

In Utah, the doctrine of res judicata is comprised of two 

branches: claim preclusion and collateral estoppel (issue 

preclusion). Penrod Y..!.. Nu Creation Creme, Inc., 669 P.2d 873, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-4204 Document: 010110090159 Date Filed: 09/18/1991 Page: 2 
874-75 (Utah 1983); Smith Y..!.. Smith, 793 P.2d 407, 409 (Utah App. 

1990). Here, we are concerned with claim preclusion. Under Utah 

law, the rule of claim preclusion bars relitigation of claims for 

relief that were "once litigated on the merits and resulted in a 

final judgment between the same parties." Penrod, 669 P.2d at 

875. The rule "also prevents relitigation of claims that could 

have and should have been litigated in the prior action but were 

not." Id. In this case, Utah preclusion principles would bar 

relitigation of Weber's first and second causes of action. 

Weber's first claim, which alleges the State of Utah's medical 

assistance program violates federal law, was previously litigated 

on the merits and resulted in a final judgment at both the state 

administrative agency and in state district court. The state 

court of appeals then affirmed the district court's holding. The 

second claim -- for breach of contract -- could have and should 

have been litigated in the same action. Because Utah law would 

preclude relitigation of these claims, we hold that these claims 

are barred under the federal Full Faith and Credit Statute. 

The Supreme Court has recognized several exceptions to the 

rule that federal courts should give preclusive effect to state 

court judgments. Weber asserts that, pursuant to Kremer Y..!.. 

Chemical Construction Co., Inc., 456 U.S. 461 (1982), we should 

not give preclusive effect to the Utah state court judgment 

because those proceedings did not afford Weber a full and fair 

opportunity to litigate the claims asserted there. After 

reviewing the record of the state court proceedings, we conclude 

that Weber fully and fairly litigated its claim that Utah's 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-4204 Document: 010110090159 Date Filed: 09/18/1991 Page: 3 
medical assistance program violates federal law. We also hold 

that no other exceptions to the general rule of preclusion warrant 

relitigation of the claim in federal court. 

Having determined that Weber's claims were fully and fairly 

litigated in state court, we also hold that Weber's section 1983 

claim is without merit. 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of the 

action. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-4-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-4204 Document: 010110090159 Date Filed: 09/18/1991 Page: 4