# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 16 61

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Leo na rd N. And ers on ; Ca ro l D. Ber g; Caro l D. Ber g LLC

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff s - Ap pe ll an ts

v.

Ci ty of St . Pau l, Mi nn es ot a, a Mi nn es ot a Ch art er Ci ty; Ste ve n M ag ne r, bo th in di vi du al ly and in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty as an em pl oyee of th e Ci ty of St . Pau l, Mi nn es ot a; Kath y

Lant ry ; M el vi n C art er; Dave Thu ne ; Pa t Har ris ; Ru ss Sta rk ; Lee Helg en ; Do n B os tro m , bo th in di vi du al ly and in th ei r cap aci ti es as m em be rs of t he Ci ty Co un ci l of the Ci ty of St

. Pa ul; K am ish E xcav at in g, In c., a Mi nn es ot a co rp or at io n

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an ts - App el le es

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - Mi nn eap ol is

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 16 , 20 16 Fil ed : M arch 1, 2 01 7

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re BENTON an d S HEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d S TRAND, Dist ric t J ud ge

. 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ SHEPHERD, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

The Hon or ab le Leo na rd T. St ran d, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 1 Nor th ern Dis tri ct of I owa , si tt in g b y de si gn at io n.Leo na rd And ers on ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r di sm is si ng hi s fed eral an d 2

st at e la w c la im s ari si ng fro m a nu is an ce ab at em en t carr ie d o ut on hi s l an d. Fo r th e

reas on s d is cu ss ed be lo w, we affi rm

.

I.

Mr. And ers on own s a 2.3 -acr e lo t in St

. Pau l, Mi nn es ot a whe re he co ll ect s an d

st or es , am on g ot he r th in gs , ve hi cl es , tra il ers , co m m erci al st or ag e un it s, ba rrel s, bo at s,

an d br ok en la wn m owe rs

. Bran di ng th e co ll ect io n a pu bl ic nu is an ce, th e Ci ty of St

. Pau l ha s tri ed fo r y ears to m ak e Mr. An de rs on cle an up hi s lo t. In de ed , t hi s ap pe al
is on ly th e la te st de ve lo pm en t in an on go in g st ru gg le be twee n Mr. And ers on an d th e ci ty, on e th at ha s sp awn ed pr op ert y in sp ect io ns , n u is an ce ab at em en ts , ci ty co un ci l
he ari ng s, an d n ow b ot h s ta te an d fe de ral laws ui ts

.

Ju st be fo re Ch ris tm as 20 11
, th e ci ty is su ed a “ no ti ce to pr oc eed wit h nu is an ce ab at em en t” in st ru ct in g ci ty co nt ract or Kam is h Exc av at io n to rem ov e an d di sp os e of

va rio us it em s of pe rs on al pr op ert y st or ed on Mr. And ers on ’s lo t. A m on th earl ie r, th e ci ty ha d or de red Mr. And ers on to cu re th e nu is an ce on hi s own an d warn ed hi m th at fai lu re to do so co ul d le ad to an ab at em en t by th e ci ty. Mr. And ers on di d no t cu re th e

n ui sa nc e bu t ap pe al ed to th e ci ty co un ci l. W he n he fai le d to at te nd hi s le g i s l a t i v e he ari ng , th e co un ci l de ni ed th e ap pe al bu t gr an te d an ex te ns io n fo r And ers on to cl ean
up th e nu is an ce hi m se lf. The de ad li ne arri ve d an d th e nu is an ce rem ai ne d, so Kam is h,
in acco rd an ce wit h th e ci ty’ s in st ru ct io ns , en te red And ers on ’s la nd an d co m pl et ed th e ab at em en t

. Mr. And ers on pr om pt ly su ed th e ci ty an d two of it s of fic ia ls in th e Ram se y C o u nt y Dis tri ct Co ur t, al le gi ng vi ol at io ns of th e Fi fth an d Fo ur te en th
Am en dm en ts to th e Uni te d Sta te s Cons ti tu ti on , al on g wit h st at e co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s,

The Hon or ab le Pat ric k J. Sch il tz , Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 2 of Mi nn es ot a.

-2

-tre sp as s, an d co nv ers io n. In ad di ti on to Mr. And ers on , th e pl ai nt iff s were And ers on ’s
lo ng -te rm co m

pa ni o n C a r o l Berg an d he r bu si ne ss , B erg LLC. Ms . B erg an d Berg
LLC were in cl ud ed pa rtl y be cau se on e o f th e it em s rem ov ed fro m Mr. And ers on ’s

pr op ert y , a co m

m erci al sh ip pi ng co nt ai ne r , b e l o n g e d to Berg LLC. The tri al co ur t

gr an te d th e de fen da nt s’ m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on al l cl ai m s an d en te red fin al jud gm en t ag ai ns t t he pl ai nt iff s. The Mi nn es ot a Co ur t o f App eal s af fir m ed , and th e Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t d en ie d re vi ew.

Uns uc ces sf

ul i n st at e co ur t, And ers on , Berg
, an d Berg LLC (co ll ect iv el y , App el la nt s) ne xt fil ed su it i n t h e U n i te d St at es Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of
Mi nn es ot a, ag ai n ch al le ng in g th e 20 11 ab at em en t. The y n a m ed th e ci ty, a ci ty 3

e mp l o ye e, se ve n ci ty co un se lo rs , an d th e ci ty co nt ract or as de fen da nt s. Th e

co m pl ai nt al le ge d vi ol at io ns of th e Fo ur th
, Fi fth
, an d Fo ur te en th Am en dm en ts to th e Uni te d St at es Co ns ti tu ti on , as well as st at e co ns ti tu ti on al cl ai m s, co nv ers io n,

ne gl ig en ce, an d vi ol at io ns of th e Mi nn es ot a Gov ern m en t Data Prac ti ces A ct

. The
di st ric t co ur t he ld th at cl ai m pr ecl us io n pr ev en ts th e App el la nt s fro m rel it ig at in g th ei r fed eral cl ai m s ari si ng fro m th e 20 11 ab at em en t be cau se th os e cl ai m s al read y were or

co ul d ha ve be en ad

jud ic at ed in th e 20 12 st at e co ur t a c t i o n

. I n do in g so th e di st ric t

The fed eral co m

pl ai n t al so ch al le ng ed a se pa rat e nu is an ce ab at em en t th at 3

oc cu rred in 20 10
, al th ou gh th is ap pe al in vo lv es on ly th e 20 11 ab at em en t. Lit ig at io n

su rro un di ng th e 20 10 ab at em en t ha s it s own co nv ol ut ed pr oc ed ur al po st ur e. And ers on fir st ch al le ng ed th e 20 10 ab at em en t or de r in a le gi sl at iv e he ari ng be fo re th e St

. Pau l Ci ty Co un ci l. W he n he fai le d, he ap pe al ed to t h e Ram se y Co un ty Dis tri ct Co ur t. The co ur t di sm is se d fo r la ck of juri sd ic ti on , co nc lu di ng th at th e ci ty co un ci l’s de ci si on was qu as i-ju di ci al an d th eref or e ap pe al ab le on ly to th e Mi nn es ot a Co ur t of App eal s. And ers on th en ap pe al ed to th at co ur t, se ek in g a writ of cert io rari req ui rin g th e di st ric t cou rt to rev ie w th e ci ty co un ci l’s de ci si on

. The ap pe al s cou rt refu se d to is su e th e writ
, in st e ad affi rm in g bo th th e ab at em en t or de r as well as th e di st ric t

co ur t’s juri sd ic ti on al de ci si on

. And ers on v. Ci ty of St

. Pau l, No. A09 -1 26 9, 20 10 W L 18 50 64 8 (Mi nn

. Ct

. App

. May 11
, 20 10 ). The Mi nn es ot a Su p r e me C o u rt de ni ed

rev ie w.

-3

-co ur t reject ed And ers on ’s arg um en t th at hi s fed eral cl ai m s are f or “ co nt in ui ng

wro ng s,” th at is , f

ai lu re to ret ur n th e ab at ed pr op ert y , wh ic h And ers o n c l a im ed di d

no t oc cu r un t i l a f

t e r th e st at e li ti ga ti on en de d. The co ur t no te d th at And ers on ’s
fed eral co m

pl ai nt di d no t rai se a co nt in ui ng wro ng cl ai m an d, ev en if it ha d, th e cl ai m

wou ld fai l be cau se it do es no t al le ge on go in g co nd u c t b u t r at he r on go in g ha rm —i nt e r r u p te d us e of pr op ert y —wh ic h co ul d ha ve be en red res se d by th e st at e

co ur t ha d And ers on pr ev ai le d. Hav in g di sp os ed of th e fed eral cl ai m s ari si ng fro m th e 20 11 ab at em en t, th e di st ric t co ur t de cl in ed to ex erci se su pp le m en ta l juri sd ic ti on ov er th e rem ai ni ng st at e la w cla im s an d d is m is se d t he cas e.

II.

A di st ric t co ur t’s gr an t of a m ot io n to di sm is s is r e v i e wed de no vo , wit h al l

reas on ab le in fere nc es co ns tru ed in fav or of th e no nm ov an t. E-Sh op s Co rp . v . U.S.
Ban k Nat ’l Ass ’n, 67 8 F .3d 65 9, 6 62 (8t h C ir. 2 01 2)

.

Mi nn es ot a la w g ov e r ns th e pr ecl us iv e effe ct of a pr io r Mi nn es ot a st at e co ur t jud gm en t. See Res ta te m en t (Sec on d) of Ju dg m en ts § 86 (“ A va li d an d fin al jud gm en t of a st at e co ur t ha s th e sa m e effe ct s un de r th e ru le s o f r e s ju di cat a in a su bs eq ue nt

act io n in a fed eral co u r t t h a t th e jud gm en t ha s by th e la w of th e st at e in whi ch th e jud gm en t was ren de red

. . . .”); se e al so Hil la ry v. Tran sWorl d Airl in es , In c., 12 3 F.3 d
10 41 , 1 04 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ) (“ [T]he res jud ic at a effe ct of th e fi rs t fo ru m ’s ju dg m en t is go ve rn ed by th e fir st fo ru m ’s la w, no t by th e la w of th e se co nd fo ru m .”) (int ern al

qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. Und er Mi nn es ot a’s cl ai m pr ecl us io n do ct rin e (al so kn own

as “ res jud ic at a”), cl ai m s th at were or co ul d ha ve be en ad jud ic at ed by a co ur t of

co m pe te nt juri sd ic ti on can no t be rel it ig a t e d i n an ot he r co ur t. Hau sc hi ld t v. Bec ki ng ha m , 68 6 N.W .2d 82 9, 83 7 (Mi nn

. 20 04 ). The do ct rin e “ap p l i e s as an ab so lu te ba r to a su bs eq ue nt cl ai m whe n (1 ) th e ear li er cl ai m in vo lv ed th e sa m e se t of fact ua l ci rcu m st an ces ; (2 ) t h e earl ie r cl ai m in vo lv ed th e sa m e pa rti es or th ei r
pr iv ie s; (3 ) th ere was a fin al jud gm en t on th e m eri ts ; [an d] (4 ) th e es to pp ed pa rty ha d

-4

-a fu ll an d fai r op po rtu ni ty to li ti ga te th e m at te r.” Id

. at 84 0. App lying th es e el em en ts

to th e cas e at ha nd
, we h o l d t h a t App el la nt s’ fed eral act io n ch al le ng in g th e 20 11

nu is an ce ab at em en t is pr ecl ud ed by t h e su m m ary jud gm en t gr an te d in th e Ram se y Co un ty Dis tri ct Co ur t an d affi rm ed by th e Mi nn es ot a Co ur t of App eal s. Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

.

A. Sam e Set of F act ua l Ci rcu m st an ces

“ The co m m on te s t f

o r d e t erm in in g whe th er a fo rm er jud gm en t is a ba r to a

su bs eq ue nt act io n is to in qu ire whe th er th e sa m e ev id en ce wil l su st ai n bo th act io ns .”
Id . at 8 40 -4 1 (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . It fo ll ows th at , if fact s gi vi ng ris e
to a cl ai m in th e se co nd act io n di d no t oc cu r un ti l aft er th e fir st act io n te rm in at es , cl ai m pre cl us io n wo ul d n ot ba r th e su bs eq ue nt cla im . S ee M ach v. Well s C on cret e Pro ds

. Co
., 86 6 N.W .2d 92 1, 92 5 (Mi nn

. 20 15 ) (“ Cl ai m s are no t co ns id ered th e sa m e

cau se of act io n if th e rig ht to as se rt th e se co nd cl ai m di d no t ari se at th e sa m e ti m e as th e r i g h t t o a ss ert th e fir st cl ai m .”) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. App el la nt s
arg ue th at th ei r fed eral co m pl ai nt “ was en ti rel y ba se d on a ne w se t of fact s oc cu rri ng aft er th e di sm is sa l of th e [s ta te co ur t su it ]. ” Tho ug h no t a m od el of cl ari ty on th is

po in t, App el la nt s’ br ie f in di cat es th at , whi le li ti ga ti ng in st at e co ur t, App el la nt s di d

no t an d co ul d no t ha ve kn own th at ci ty em pl oyees ret ai ne d Mr. And ers on ’s ab at ed

pr op ert y fo r pe rs on al us e. The se rece nt ly di sc ov ered fact s, acco rd in g to App el la nt s,
ga v e r i s e to two ne w cl ai m s— ne ve r be fo re li ti ga te d in an y co ur t— th at th e ab at ed

pr op ert y “ was frau du le nt ly con ceal ed an d p art of a co nt in ui ng vi ol at io n.”

The su pp os ed l y ne w fact s an d cau se s of act io n th at App el la nt s arg ue en ab le
th ei r fed eral su it to su rv iv e are vi si bl y ab se nt fro m th ei r fed eral co m pl ai nt

. In de ed
,

ne it he r frau du le nt co nc eal m en t no r co nt in ui ng to rt are st at ed as ba se s fo r rel ie f, an d

no fact s are s e t fo rth su gg es ti ng th at App el le es ’ co nd uc t sa ti sf ie d ei th er of th e

un st at ed cl ai m s. Rat he r, as th e di st ric t co ur t ob se rv ed
, at it s c o r e t hi s li ti ga ti on ch al le ng es th e ta ki ng an d de st ro y in g, no t th e co nc eal in g or ret ai ni ng , of th e pr op ert y

-5

-rem ov ed fro m Mr. And ers on ’s la nd

. Fo r in st an ce, th e co m pl ai nt sp eci fic al ly as ks fo r

a fin di ng th at (1 ) “ no au th or it y ex is te d

. . . th at wou ld al lo w fo r th e de st ru ct io n of

pe rs on al pr op ert y in th e m an ne r D e f en da nt s de st ro y ed th e pe rs on al pr op ert y of th e Pl ai nt iff s” ; and th at (2 ) th e Defen da nt s’ act io ns “ pe rm an en tl y de pr iv ed Pl ai nt iff s of
th ei r pe rs on al pr op ert y .” B e c a u s e th e fed eral co m pl ai nt do es no t id en ti fy an y ne w fact s th at wou ld su pp or t frau du le nt co nc eal m en t or co nt in ui ng to rt, we fai l to se e ho w th os e cl ai m s d is ti ng ui sh pre se nt fro m pri or pro ceed in gs in an y m ean in gf

ul m an ne r.

In su m , th e rel ev an t fact ua l ci rcu m st an ces of th e fo rm er an d cu rren t act io ns are
t h o s e s ur ro un di ng th e Decem be r 22
, 20 11 nu is an ce ab at em en t carr ie d ou t on Mr.
And ers on ’s pr op ert y

. The reco rd do es no t po in t to a si ng le fact ua l de ve lo pm en t th at

oc cu rred aft er th e st at e co ur t l i t i g a t i o n en de d. W e th eref or e co nc lu de th at bo th

act io ns in vo lv e th e sa m e se t o f fac ts

.

B. Sam e Par ti es or P riv ie s

Fo ur of th e th irt een pa rti es to th e cu rren t ac ti on were als o par ti es to th e st at e

su it : And ers on , Berg
, an d Berg LLC as pl ai nt iff s, an d th e C i t y o f St

. Pau l as a de fen da nt . As to th e se ve n c it y co un se lo rs an d ci ty co nt ract or Kam is h Ex cav at in g, who were no t pa rti es in st at e co ur t, App el la nt s’ co un se l ha s ex pr es sl y co nc ed ed th at th os e de fen da nt s are in pr i v it y wit h th e ci ty. Mo t. Hr’g Tr. 11 -1 2, Sep t. 16
, 20 15
, ECF N o. 94 . The o nl y

rem ai ni ng pa rty is S te ve n M ag ne r, th e ci ty m an ag er of cod e

en fo rcem en t who
, acco rd in g to App el la nt s’ co m pl ai nt , su pe rv is ed th e ab at em en t on Mr. And ers on ’s pr op ert y in 20 11

. Thu s, we m us t de te rm in e whe th er Mr. Mag ne r is
in pri vi ty w it h a pa rty to t he pri or st at e co ur t ac ti on

.

Pri vi ty ex is ts whe re a no n- pa rty’ s “ in te res ts are rep res en te d by a p a rty t o th e
act io n,” or whe re a pa rty i s “ ot he rwis e so id en ti fie d in in te res t wit h an ot he r t h at he

rep res en ts th e sa m e le ga l rig ht ” wit h res pe ct to a pr ev io us ly as se rte d cl ai m

. Ru ck er v. Schm id t, 79 4 N.W .2d 11 4, 11 8 (Mi nn

. 20 11 ) (i nt ern al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

.

-6

-It is no t en ou gh th at two in di vi du a l s b o t h wis h to pr ev ai l in li ti ga ti on ; th ei r le ga l

in te res ts m

us t be al ig ne d to th e po in t of be in g “ si m il arl y affe ct ed by th e ou tc om e of

a le ga l pr oc eed in g.” Id

. at 12 0. The Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t ha s em ph as iz ed th at

pr iv it y ha s no pe r se de fin it io n an d t ha t pr iv it y de te rm in at io ns “ req ui re[] a care fu l

ex am in at io n o f th e ci rcu m st an ces of e ach cas e.” Id . at 1 18

.

The di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d t ha t Mi nn es ot a la w g en eral ly rec og ni zes pr iv it y be twee n th e go ve rn m en t an d it s em pl oyees. In su pp or t, th e co ur t ci te d Vize no r v

. Hof fm an , an un pu bl is he d de ci si on fro m th e Mi nn es ot a Co ur t of App eal s. No. A07

- 06 46
, 20 08 W L 93 34 80
, at *3 (Mi nn

. Ct

. A p p. Apr

. 8, 20 08 ). Tho ug h we do no t ad op t th e di st ric t co ur t’s ge ne ral iz at io n reg ard in g em pl oyer-em

pl oyee p r iv it y , we 4
fin d th e fact s an d an al y si s of Vize no r in st ru ct iv e to ou r de te rm in at io n t h a t M r. M a g n e r a n d th e Ci ty of St

. Pau l are in pr iv it y

. Vize no r in vo lv ed a ch al le ng e to a
ta ki ng an d fo rfei tu re of th e pl ai nt iff ’s pe rs on al pr op ert y by co un ty de pu ti es

. Id

. at *1

. The pl ai nt iff fir st su ed th e co un ty an d, afte r se tt li ng th os e cl ai m s, ini ti at ed a se co nd

su it ag ai ns t th e sh eri ff’s de pa rtment an d th e two de pu ti e s i n v o l ve d in th e pr op ert y

se iz ur e. Id

. a t * 1
, * 3

. In fin di ng th at th e de pu ti es , as co un ty em pl oyees, were in

pr iv it y wit h th e co un ty, th e co ur t no te d th at th e de pu ti es ’ “ in te res ts were affe ct ed by
th e [p rio r la wsu it ] b e c a u s e i t was th ei r job to se iz e th e pr op ert y an d carr y ou t th e fo rfei tu re.” Id . at * 3.

Lik e th e de pu ti es in Vize no r, Mr. Mag ne r is a go ve rn m en t act or ch arg ed wit h

e n f o r ci ng pr ov is io ns of th e ci ty co de

. It was hi s job to or de r th e ci ty co nt ract or t o

carr y ou t th e nu is an ce ab at eme nt on Mr. And ers on ’s la nd
, an d hi s in te res ts were th e r e f o r e a ffec te d by th e pr io r su it ch al le ng in g th at ab at em en t. As a res ul t, Mr. Mag ne r is in pri vi ty w it h t he Cit y of S t. Pa ul . See Ru ck er, 7 94 N.W .2d at 1 20

.

The Mi nn es ot a Su pr em e Co ur t ha s in di cat ed th at pr iv it y is no t es ta bl is he d by 4 vi rtu e of an em

pl oym en t rel at io ns hi p al on e. Kais er v. N. St at es Po wer Co
., 35 3 N.W .2d 89 9, 9 04 (Mi nn . 19 84 ).

-7

-C. Fin al Ju dg m en t o n t he Meri ts

The Ram se y Co un ty Dis tri ct C o u r t gr an te d su m m ary jud gm en t ag ai ns t And ers on , Berg
, an d Ber g LL C an d en te red jud gm en t acco rd in gl y

. “ It is well

es ta bl is he d th at su m

m ary jud gm en t is a fin al jud gm en t on th e m eri ts fo r pu rp os es of

res jud ic at a.” Dic k e n v

. Ash cro ft, 97 2 F.2 d 23 1, 23 3 n.5 (8 th Ci r. 19 92 ).
Acco rd in gl y , th ere was a fi na l ju dg m en t o n t he m eri ts in th e p rio r li ti ga ti on

.

D. Ful l an d F ai r Opp or tu ni ty to Li ti ga te th e Ma tt er

“ The qu es ti on of whe th er a pa rty ha d a fu ll an d fai r op p o r t u n i t y t o li ti ga te a

m at te r ge ne ral ly fo cu se s on whe th er th ere were si gn ifi can t pr oc ed ur al li m it at io ns in
th e pr io r pr oc eed in g, whe th er th e pa rty ha d th e in cen ti ve to li ti ga te fu ll y th e is su e, or whe th er effe ct iv e li ti ga ti on was li m it ed by th e na tu re or rel at io ns hi p of th e pa rti es .”
St at e v. Jo se ph
, 63 6 N.W .2d 3 2 2
, 3 2 8 (Mi nn

. 20 01 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s

om it te d)

. Acco rd in g to A p p e l l an ts ’ br ie f, “ Leo na rd And ers on ha s ne ve r ha d an
op po rtu ni ty to ch al le ng e th e co ns ti tu ti on al it y of St

. Pau l’s nu is an ce ab at em en t

or di na nc e.” Thi s as se rti on is be li ed by th e st at e co ur t reco rd

. App el la nt s’ co m pl ai nt

to th e Ram se y Co un ty Dis tri ct Co ur t sp eci fic al ly req ue st ed a de cl arat or y jud gm en t

t h at th e de fen da nt s’ “ act io ns , cu st om s, an d po li ci es

. . . ha ve vi ol at ed th e U n i t e d
St at es an d Mi nn es ot a Co ns ti tu ti o n s

. ” Bo th th e tri al co ur t an d th e st at e co ur t of

ap pe al s an al y zed th e st at e and fe de ra l co ns ti tu ti on al it y of th e de fen da nt s’ co nd uc t an d
de te rm in ed th at th e pl ai nt iff s were no t en ti tl ed to rel ie f. W hi le App el la nt s m ay ob ject

to th e ou tc om e of th e st at e co ur t pr oc eed in gs , “ a li ti ga nt ’s di sa gr eem en t wit h a le ga l

ru li ng do es no t ne c e s s a r i l y mea n th at th e co ur t de ni ed th e li ti ga nt a fu ll an d fai r
op po rtu ni ty to l it ig at e a m at te r.” Jo se ph , 63 6 N.W.2d a t 3 29

.

The reco rd rev eal s no ba rri ers to App el la nt s’ ab il it y or in cen ti ve to ch al le ng e th e 20 11 nu is an ce ab at em en t in Mi nn es ot a’s st at e co ur ts

. W e th eref or e co nc lu de th at App el la nt s h ad a fu ll an d fa ir o pp or tu ni ty to l it ig at e th is m at te r in th e p rio r act io n.

-8

-III.

W e ho ld th at App el la nt s’ cl ai m s ari si ng fro m th e 20 11 nu is an ce ab at em en t on Mr. And ers on ’s la nd are pr ecl ud ed un de r th e do ct rin e of cl ai m pr ecl us io n. Acco rd in gl y , th e d is tri ct co ur t’s o rd er d is m is si ng th os e cl ai m s i s af fir m ed

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-