2010 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-28-2010 

# M & M S t one C o v

. C omm P A DEP P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 09-3940

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2010 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M & M S t one C o v

. C omm P A DEP " (2010). 2010 D e cisio n s . P ape r 861. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2010/861H onor abl e N oel L . H i l l m an, U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctJ udge forthe D i s tr i ctof N ew * J e rs e y , s ittin g b yd e s ig n a tio n . NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 09- 3940 M & M S T O N E C O ., A p p e llan t

v. CO M M ONWE AL T H OF P E NNS YL VANI A, DE P AR T M E NT OF E NVI RO NM E NT AL P R O T E C T IO N ; *R A Y D E L L E B E R G E R , E x ec u tr ix o f th e E stat e o f R o g er H o rnb erg er; J . SCOTT RO BERTS, I n d i v i d u a l l ya n d i n Hi s Off i c i a l Ca p a c i ty ; M I CH AEL D . HI LL, In d iv id u a llya n d in h is O f f icia l C a p a c ity ; K E IT H A . L A S L O W , In d iv id u a llya n d in h is O f f i c i a l C a p a c i ty; M A R T I N S O K O L O W , I n d i v i d u a l l y a n d i n H i s O f f i c i a l C a p a c i ty; T E L F O R D B O R O U G H A U T H O R IT Y ; M A R K D . F O U R N IE R , In d iv id u a llya n d in h is Of f i c i a l Ca p a c i ty ; S P OT T S S T E VE NS & M CC OY, I NC . ; RI CH AR D M . S C H L O E S S E R ; D E L A W A R E R IV E R B A S IN C O M M ISS IO N ; W ILL IA M J.

M U S Z Y N S K I, In d iv id u a llya n d in h is o f f icia l ca p a c ity *( Pur s uantt o C our tO r derof 4/ 19/ 10) APP EAL F ROM THE UNI TE D ST ATE S DI S TRI CT C OURT F O R T H E E A S T E R N D IS T R IC T O F P E N N S Y L V A N IA

( D . C . C i vi l N o. 07- cv- 4784) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H onor abl e J ames K nol l G ar dner Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

M ay10, 2010 B efor e: B A R R Y , R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges and H I L L M A N D i s tr i ctJ udge *M & M al s o fi l ed s ui tagai ns ts ever al empl oy ees of thes e def endant s i n thei ri ndi vi dual 1 and off i ci al capac i t i es, i ncludi ng D E P em ploy ees R og er H ornberger, S cottR ob ert s, M i c h a e l D. Hi l l , Ke i th A. L a s l o w, a n d M a r t i n S o k o l o w; T BA Ge n e r a l M a n a g e rM a r k D. F o u rn i e r ; S p o t t s S t e v e n s & M c Co y , I n c . e mp l o y e e Ri c h a r d M . S c h l o e s s e r ; a n d DRCB empl oy ee W i l l i am J. M us zyns ki . M r . H ornber ger , a r et i r ed empl oy ee of the D E P, pas s ed aw ayd u ri n g the p en d en cyo f th is ap p ea l, an d R ay d ell e B erg er, M r. H o rnb erg er’s ex ec u tr ix, has b ee n su b sti tuted as a p artyp u rsua n t t o F ed . R . A p p . P . 4 3 (a)(1). W e cons i derthe pr i nci pl es of i s s ue pr ecl us i on and col l at er al es t oppel t o be 2 s ynonym ous . W hi l e the part i es us e the t erm s i nt er change abl y , forthe s ake of cl ar i tyand c o n sis ten c y , w e u se o n lyth e f o rm e r te rm . W e c o n sid e r th e se p a ra te c o n c e p t o f c laim p re c lu s io n to b e a s u b s e t o f th e b ro a d e r c o n c e p t o f

re s ju d ic a ta . See Migr a v. W ar r en C i t y Sch. D is t . B d. of

E duc. , 4 6 5 U .S . 7 5 , 7 7 n .1 (1 9 8 4 ).

-2- ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: J ul y28, 2010 )

OP I NI ON

H I L L M A N , D i s tr i ctJ udge M & M St one C o. ( “M & M ”) appea l s fr om an or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s i ng i t s cl ai m s forcons t i tut i onal and s t at e l aw vi ol at i ons agai ns tthe C om m onw eal th of Penns y l vani a, D epart m entof Envi r onm ent al Pr ot ect i on ( “D E P”) , the Tel for d B or ough A u th o rity(“ T B A ” ), S p o tts S tev e n s & M c C o y , In c ., a n d th e D e law a re R iv e r B a sin C om m i s s i on ( “D R C B ”) . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s ed the cl ai m s bas ed on the 1 p rin c ip les o f

c laim p re c lu sio n a n d iss u e p re c lu sio n . F o r th e re a so n s th a t f o llo w , w e w ill 2 a f f i r m. I . Backg r ound-3-

M & M ow ns and oper at ed a qua rryi n T el for d, Penns y l vani a forthe pr oduct i on of c o n stru c tio n a n d a rc h itec tu ra l sto n e . T h e D E P re g u late s q u a rryo p e ra tio n s in P en n sy lvan ia, the D R B C reg u lat es g rou n d w ater w ith d raw als i n the D elaw are R iver’s w at er s hed, and the TB A s uppl i es dr i nki ng w at ert o r es i dence s , bus i nes s es , and n e ig h b o ri n g c o m m u n itie s th ro u g h s e v e ra l d e e p g ro u n d w e lls e n c ir c lin g th e q u a rr y . S p o t t s S t e v e n s & M c Co y , I n c . i s a n e n g i n e e r i n g a n d c o n s u l t i n g f i r m r e t a i n e d b yth e TBA to m o n ito r i ts w e lls a n d d e te rm in e th e c a u s e o f th e ird e w a te ri n g . T h e e v e n ts le a d in g to M & M ’s s u it ag a in st th e se e n tit ies , an d se v e ra l o f th e ir empl oy ees i ndi vi dual l yand i n thei roffi ci al capa ci t i es , al l egedl ybegan i n O ct ober1999, w hen M & M appl i ed for , and w as gr ant ed, a perm i tt o deepe n i t s quarryby50 fee t . Fr om that poi nt on, as det ai l ed in M & M ’s com plai nt and t he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s tw o O pini on s, M & M cl ai m s thatal l the def endant s cons pi r ed t o bl ame M & M ’ s quarry - deepe ni ng act i vi t i es forthe dew at er i ng of TB A W el l N o. 4, w hen i tw as actual l ycaus ed bythe T B A ’s o th e r w e lls , a n d to f o rc e M & M to p a yf

o r a n a rs e n ic -f

re e p u b lic w a te r s u p p ly. O n N ovember15, 2005, the D E P i s s ued tw o compl i ance or der s , w hi ch r equi r ed M & M t o cea s e al l m i ni ng act i vi t i es and t o r es t or e and r epl ace the w at ers uppl i es aff ect ed byi t s operat i on s. A m on th lat er, M & M fi l ed it s fi rs tform al chall eng e t o the defen dan t s’ al l eged s cheme w i th an appe al t o the C om m onw eal th of Penns y l vani a Envi r onm ent alT he D E P i s s ued a thi r d compl i ance or deron M ar ch 9, 2006, w hi ch w as l at er 3 in c o rp o ra ted in to M & M ’s a p p e a l. W ith re g a rd to th e c laim s th a t w e re n o t d ism iss e d , the D istric t C o u rt d e c lin e d to 4 ab stai n u n d er Y

o u n g e r v . H

a rr is , 401 U . S. 37 ( 1971) , and found M & M ’ s cl ai m s not p re c lu d e d b e c a u se th e d e f e n d a n ts d id n o t sh o w th a t M & M c o u ld h a v e ra ise d its cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons cl ai m s befor e the EH B . I n the dec i s i on on appea l her e, the D i s tr i ctC our tr econs i der ed i t s r ej ect i on of the Y oungerd o c trin e , fin d in g th a t it i m pr oper l yas s i gned the bur den on the thi r d pr ong of the t es tt o the def endant s . T he D istric t C o u rt a lso d e ter m in e d th a t M & M c o u ld h a v e , an d sh o u ld h a v e , rais e d its c o n stitu tio n a l v io latio n s c laim s b e f o re th e E H B . In its a p p e a l, M & M f o c u se s o n th is iss u e , an d a rg u e s to th e c o n tra ry . T h is p o in t, ho w e v e r, is o n lyre lev a n t to c laim p re c lu sio n . A s d isc u ss e d b e lo w , b e c a u se w e f in d th a t th e D istric t C o u rt p ro p e rly d e ter m in e d th a t all o f

M & M ’s c laim s a re b a rre d o n th e b a sis o f iss u e p re c lu sio n , w e w ill n o t ad d re ss th is a rg u m e n t. -4- H ear i ng B oar d ( “EH B ”) . D ur i ng the pende ncyof thatappea l , on N ovember14, 2007, 3 M & M fi l ed i t s cas e i n the D i s tr i ctC our ts eeki ng i nj unct i ve r el i ef, as w el l as damages for con st i tuti on al and st at e l aw viol at i on s. T he s ubs t ance and t i m el i ne of thes e par al l el pr ocee di ngs ar e i m por t antt o the anal y s i s of w hetherthe D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yappl i ed the doctr i nes of cl ai m and i s s ue pr ecl us i on. O n J anuary31, 2008, aft era tw el ve- dayl ong hear i ng, the EH B found thatt he D E P o rd e rs w e re “ f

a c tu a llysu p p o rte d , rea so n a b le a n d in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th e law in a ll r es pect s . ” ( A . 723. ) T he EH B opi ni on cont ai ned 165 fi ndi ngs of fa ctand s panned ove r 5 0 p a g e s . T h e o p i n i o n s o f t e n e x p e r t s we r e c o n s i d e r e d . On F e b ru a ry2 9 , 2 0 0 8 , M&M fi l ed a pe t i t i on forr evi ew befor e the C om m onw eal th C our tof Penns y l vani a. O n Sept ember29, 2008, the D i s tr i ctC our tgr ant ed i n partand deni ed i n partthe defe ndant s ’ fi r s tm ot i on t o di s m i s s M & M ’ s compl ai nt . Shor t l yther eaf t er , the 4B eca us e br i efi ng had al r eadyconcl uded, w e w er e pr ovi ded w i th the M ar ch 26, 2010 5 E H B o p inion p u rsua n t t o F ed . R . A p p . P . 2 8 (j ). -5- C om m on w eal th C ou rti ssued i t s 21-pag e op i nion agreei ng w i th the E H B “i n all res pects ” a n d a f f ir m in g its d e c is io n . Fr om D ece m ber2008 thr ough J ul y2009, the C om m onw eal th C our tdeni ed M & M ’ s m ot i on forr econs i der at i on, M & M fi l ed an a l l ocaturpet i t i on w i th the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t , and M & M fi l ed an appl i cat i on t o s uppl ementi t s al l ocatur p eti ti o n w ith n ew lyd isco v ere d ev iden ce . O n S ep tem b er 3 0 , 2 0 0 9 , the D istri ct C o u rt di s m i s s ed M & M ’ s amended compl ai nti n i t s ent i r ety , fi ndi ng thatM & M ’ s cons t i tut i onal v io latio n s c laim s w e re b a rre d o n th e b a sis o f c laim a n d iss u e p re c lu sio n , an d d e c lin in g to e x e rc is e s u p p le m e n ta l ju ri s d ic tio n o v e r M & M ’s re m a in in g s ta te la w n e g lig e n c e c la im . M & M fi l ed i t s not i ce of appea l on O ct ober8, 2009. O n D ece m ber8, 2009, the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tdeni ed M & M ’ s pet i t i ons w i thoutpr ej udi ce t o M & M ’ s r i ghtt o r ai s e af t er - di s cover ed evi dence cl ai m s befor e the E H B . A few w eeks l at er , M & M fi l ed w i th the EH B a pet i t i on t o r eopen the r ecor d and re c o n sid e r its o p in io n . O n M a rc h 2 6 , 2 0 1 0 , the E H B d e n ied M & M ’s r e q u e st to re c o n sid e r a n d o p e n th e re c o rd . In a 1 5 -p a g e o p in io n , the E H B e x p lain e d th a t n o t o n ly di d M & M fai l t o pr oper l ym ove t o r eopen, even i f i tdi d, the “ne w evi dence ” di d not w arr antr econs i der at i on orr eopeni ng. 5 In its a p p e a l b e f

o re u s, M & M c h a llen g e s th e D istric t C o u rt’s d ism iss a l o f itsM & M does notappea l the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deci s i on t o decl i ne s uppl ement al 6 j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e ri t s s t a t e l a w c l a i m. -6- c laim s o n th e b a sis o f

c laim a n d iss u e p re c lu sio n . M & M a rg u e s th a t re s ju d ica ta 6 pr i nci pl es do notpr ecl ude i t s cl ai m s beca us e i tcoul d nothave br oughti t s cl ai m s for cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i ons befor e the EH B , and the EH B coul d nothave pr ovi ded i tthe r el i ef i tcoul d obt ai n i n fede r al court . I tal s o ar gues thatpr ecl us i on pr i nci pl es do not a p p lyb e c a u se its c o n stitu tio n a l an d c o n sp ira c yc laim s (o r, th e “ iss u e s” re latin g to its co n sti tuti o n al an d co n sp ir ac yclaim s) w ere n o t actua ll yad d resse d in the stat e c o u rt pr ocee di ngs . M & M fur therar gues thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ti m pr oper l ycons i der ed the s u b s ta n c e o f

th e E H B a n d s ta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g s w h ile re s o lv in g th e m o tio n s to d is m is s . I I . D i s cus s i on T he D i s tr i ctC our thad s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1331 o v er M & M ’s co n sti tuti o n al vio lat ion s claim s, an d su p p lem en tal juri sd ict ion o v er M & M ’s c la im s p u rs u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 6 7 (a ). W e h a v e ju ri s d ic tio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . T he gene r al rul e i s thatw e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew of a de ci s i on t o appl yi s s ue p re c lu s io n , o r c o lla te ra l e s to p p e l, a n d c la im p re c lu s io n . See Jean A l exan der C osm et i cs, I nc. v. L' O r eal

U SA , I nc. , 4 5 8 F .3 d 2 4 4 , 2 4 8 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ) (iss u e p re c lu sio n ); R i derv. P e n n sy lva n ia , 8 5 0 F . 2 d 9 8 2 , 9 8 8 -95 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) (clai m p rec lusion ). T he pr i nci pl es of i s s ue pr ecl us i on and cl ai m pr ecl us i on ar e s i m i l ar . See Migr a v. W ar r en C i t y Sch. D is t . B d. of

E duc. , 465 U . S. 75, 77 n. 1 ( 1984) ( expl ai ni ng thatthe-7-

doctr i ne of r es j udi cat a “i s oft en ana l y zed . . . t o cons i s tof tw o pr ecl us i on conce pt s : ‘ i s s ue pr ecl us i on’ and ‘ cl ai m pr ecl us i on’ ”) . A l though thes e doctr i nes both govern the pr ecl us i ve ef

fec t s of a f

or m eradj udi cat i on, theyar e appl i ed i n di ffe r entw ay s . “I s s ue pr ecl us i on r efe r s t o the ef fec tof a j udgm enti n for ecl os i ng r el i t i gat i on of a mat t erthathas been l i t i gat ed and de ci ded. ” I d. “ C laim p re c lu sio n re f e rs to th e e f

f e c t o f a ju d g m e n t in for ecl os i ng l i t i gat i on of a mat t erthatneverhas been l i t i gat ed, beca us e of a det erm i nat i on thati ts houl d have be en adva nced i n an ea r l i ers ui t . ” I d. T h e D istric t C o u rt d ism iss e d se v e ra l o f M & M ’s c laim s o n th e b a sis o f c laim pr ecl us i on, butal s o found thatal l of M & M ’ s cl ai m s w er e barr ed on the bas i s of i s s ue pr ecl us i on. B eca us e the fi ndi ng thatthe doctr i ne of i s s ue pr ecl us i on barr ed M & M fr om as s ert i ng i t s cl ai m s i s di s pos i t i ve of a l l of M & M ’ s cl ai m s , w e w i l l fi r s tfocus ourr evi ew on thati s s ue. T he purpos e of pr ecl udi ng “part i es fr om cont es t i ng m att er s thattheyhave ha d a ful l and fa i roppor tuni tyt o l i t i gat e pr ot ect s thei radver s ar i es fr om the expe ns e and vexat i on att endi ng m ul t i pl e l aw s ui t s , cons erves j udi ci al r es our ces , and fos t er s r el i ance on j udi ci al act i on bym i ni m i zi ng the pos s i bi l i tyof i ncons i s t entdeci s i ons . ” Montana v. U ni t ed Stat es , 440 U . S. 147, 153- 54 ( 1979) . W i th r egar d t o i s s ues fi r s tpr es ent ed t o a s t at e tr i bunal , the fe der al court s have c ons i s t ent l yacc or ded pr ecl us i ve ef fec tt o i s s ues deci ded bys t at e court s , and, thus “r es j udi cat a and c ol l at er al es t oppel notonl yr educe u n n e c e ss a rylit ig a tio n a n d f o ste r re lian c e o n a d

ju d ica tio n , b u t als o p ro m o te th e c o m ity-8-

betw een s t at e and f

eder al court s thathas been r ecogni zed a s a bul w ark of the fe der al s y s t em. ” A l l en v. M

cC urry , 4 4 9 U .S . 9 0 , 9 5 -9 6 (1 9 8 0 ); see al so 28 U . S. C . § 1738 (p ro v id in g th a t th e ru lin g s o f sta te c o u rts “ sh a ll h a v e th e sa m e f u ll fa ith a n d c re d it i n everycourtw i thi n the U ni t ed St at es . . . as theyhave byl aw orus age i n the court s of s uch stat e . . . fro m w h ich th eyare take n ”). I n det erm i ni ng the pr ecl us i ve ef fec tof a s t at e courtj udgm ent , w e appl ythe re n d e ri n g s ta te ’s la w o f is s u e p re c lu s io n . See M a rr e se v . A m . A c a d . o

f O rth o p a e d ic Sur geons , 470 U . S. 373, 381 ( 1985) . T hus , w hetherM & M ’ s s ui ti s pr ecl uded turns on the law of P enn sy l van i a. U nd er Penn sy l van i a l aw , the fo l l ow i ng con dit i on s m ustexis t befor e i s s ue pr ecl us i on m aybe i nvoked:

(1 ) th e iss u e d e c id e d in th e p rio r a d ju d ica tio n w a s id e n tica l w ith the one pr es ent ed i n the l at eract i on; (2) there w as a fi nal j ud gm ent on t he m eri t s; (3 ) th e p a rtya g a in st w h o m th e p lea is as se rte d w a s a p a rtyo r in pr i vi tyw i th a partyt o the pr i oradj udi cat i on; and (4 ) th e p a rty a g a in st w h o m it is a ss e rte d h a s h a d a f u ll an d f a ir oppor tuni tyt o l i t i gat e the i s s ue i n ques t i on i n a pr i oract i on. Shuderv. McD onald’s C or p. , 8 5 9 F . 2 d 2 6 6 , 2 7 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). In a th o ro u g h a n a lysis , th e D is tr ic t C o u rt f o u n d th a t e a c h e le m e n t w a s s a tis f ie d . M & M cont ends , how ever , thatthe i s s ues befor e the EH B and s t at e courtar e di ffe r ent f ro m th e iss u e s ra ise d in its c a se h e re , an d th a t itd id n o t h a v e a f u ll an d f a ir o p p o rtu n ityM & M ’s a rg u m e n t th a t th e a p p lica tio n o f iss u e p re c lu sio n v io late s its S e v e n th 7 A m e n d m e n t r ig h t to a ju ry tria l is w ith o u t m e ri t. See P arkl an e H osi ery C o. , Inc. v. Sh ore , 4 3 9 U .S . 3 2 2 , 3 3 5 -3 6 (1 9 7 9 ) (e x p lain in g th a t b e c a u se “ th e p a rtya g a in st w h o m e sto p p e l is as s ert ed has l i t i gat ed ques t i ons of fa ct , and has had the fa ct s det erm i ned aga i ns thi m i n an ear l i erpr ocee di ng, ” “ther e i s no fur therfac t fi ndi ng funct i on forthe j uryt o per form , s i nce the comm on fac tual i s s ues have be en r es ol ved i n the pr evi ous act i on”) ( ci t i ng E x p a rte P et ers on, 2 5 3 U . S . 3 0 0 , 3 1 0 ( 1 9 2 0 ) ( “ N o o n e i s e n t i t l e d i n a c i v i l c a s e t o tr i a l b y j u ry, u n less an d ex ce p t so f

ar a s the re a re issue s o f f ac t t o b e d eterm ined . ”)). -9- to li ti g ate tho se issu es in the s tat e p roc ee d ing s. M & M also arg u es th at th e D istri ct C o u rt 7 s houl d have ne vercons i der ed i s s ue pr ecl us i on atthe mot i on t o di s m i s s s t age. W e do not agr ee. W ith resp ec t t o w h en a c o u rtm ayco n side r th e p rec lusive ef fe ct of a state c o u rt j udgm ent , al though i s s ue pr ecl us i on i s an af fi r m at i ve def

ens e, i tm aybe r ai s ed i n a m o tio n to d is m is s u n d e r F e d e ra l C iv il P ro c e d u re R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ). C onnel l y Found. v. Sch. D is t . of H aver f or d Tw p. , 461 F. 2d 495, 496 ( 3d C i r . 1972) . I n r evi ew i ng a R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on, i ti s w el l - es t abl i s hed thata courts houl d “cons i deronl ythe al l egat i ons i n the c o m p lain t, ex h ib its a ttac h e d to th e c o m p lain t, m a tters o f p u b lic re c o rd , an d d o c u m e n ts thatform the bas i s of a c l ai m . ” L u m v . B a n k o f A m. , 3 6 1 F . 3 d 2 1 7 , 2 2 1 n . 3 (3d C ir . 2004) . I n the cont extof dec i di ng a R ul e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i on thatr ai s es i s s ue pr ecl us i on conce rns , and w her e a pl ai nt i ff ha s noti ncl uded the exi s t ence ors ubs t ance of the pr i or ad jud icati o n s in the b o d yo f, or a tt ac h m en ts t o , it s co m p lai n t, itis ax iom ati c tha t a co u rt m us ts t i l l cons i derthe pr i oradj udi cat i on i n or dert o det erm i ne w hetheri s s ue pr ecl us i on bars that pl ai nti ff’s cl ai m s. T hu s, w e hav e held that a pr i or j ud i ci al op i nion con st i tutes a-10-

p u b lic re c o rd o f

w h ic h a c o u rtm a yta k e ju d ic ia l n o tic e . I d. W e h av e a lso h eld, ho w ev er, thata courtm aydo s o on a mot i on t o di s m i s s onl yt o es t abl i s h the exi s t ence of the o p in io n , a n d n o t f

o r t h e tru th o f

th e f a c ts a s s e rt e d in th e o p in io n . I d. “‘ [A ] courtthat e x a m in e s a tra n sc rip t o f a p rio r p ro c e e d in g to f

in d f a c ts c o n v e rts a m o tio n to d ism iss in to a mot i on fors um m aryj udgm ent . ’ ” I d. (cit ati o n o m itted). D es pi t e M & M ’ s cont ent i on thatthe D i s tr i ctC our ts houl d have c onvert ed the m o tio n s to d ism iss in to o n e s f o r su m m a ryju d g m e n t an d a llo w it ad d iti o n a l ti m e to r es pond, the D i s tr i ctC our tdi d noterrbynotdoi ng s o. A tthe out s etof i t s r evi ew of the m o tio n s, th e D istric t C o u rt to o k p ro p e r ju d icia l n o tice o f th e e x iste n c e o f

th e sta te a d m in istra tiv e a n d sta te c o u rt o p in io n s. In th o se o p in io n s, th e E H B a n d C o m m o n w e a lth C our tfound thatthe D E P “ces s at i on or der s w er e r eas onabl e and i n acc or dance w i th t he l aw i n all res pects . ” (A . 72 3, 86 1. ) Th e E H B al so fou nd that the D E P had “no l ess r es tr i ct i ve means t o r es t or e and r epl ace the l os tw at ers uppl i es , ” and thatthe D E P “had no choi ce butt o cea s e the oper at i on. ” ( A . 716. ) W i thoutcons i der i ng the under l y i ng fac tual a n a ly se s b yth e E H B a n d C o m m o n w e a lth C o u rt f o r th e ir tru th , an d in ste a d sim p ly ac k n o w ledg ing the E H B an d C o m m o n w ea lth C o u rt ’s co n clus ion s, the D istri ct C o u rt p r o p e r l yb e g a n th e i s s u e p r e c l u s i o n a n a l y s i s . T o c r e d i tM &M ’ s a r g u me n ta n d d i s a l l o w a c o u rt f ro m re c o g n izin g th e e x iste n c e o f o th e r ju d icia l o p in io n s w o u ld th w a rt a defe ndant ’ s r i ghtt o r ai s e i s s ue pr ecl us i on i n a mot i on t o di s m i s s , and i tw oul d obvi at e the ent i r e purpos e of the doctr i ne.T he EH B s peci fi cal l yaddr es s ed M & M ’ s uncons t i tut i onal t aki ng cl ai m , fi ndi ng t hat 8 M & M “ p re s e n te d n o e v id e n c e in s u p p o rt o f s u c h a c la im .” (A . 7 2 2 .) -11- W ith the E H B an d C o m m o n w ea lth C o u rt ’s find ing s as a g u ide, th e D istri ct C o u rt c o n sid e re d th e f

o u r e lem e n ts n e c e ss a ryto sa tisf yth e iss u e p re c lu sio n tes t. Itis undi s put abl e thatM & M w as a partyi n the pr i oradj udi cat i on, w hi ch r es ul t ed i n a fi nal jud g m en t on the m erit s. Itis al so clea r th at th rou g h the a d m inistrati v e a n d stat e c o u rt pr ocee di ngs , M & M w as pr ovi ded w i th the r equi s i t e due pr oces s t o s at i s fythe “f ul l and fai roppor tuni tyt o l i t i gat e” r equi r ement . T hus , the D i s tr i ctC our tpr oper l yconcl uded that th re e o f th e f o u r e lem e n ts h a d b e e n m e t. A s f o r th e f in a l p ro n g o f

th e iss u e p re c lu sio n tes t--w h e th e r th e iss u e s p re v io u sly d e c i d e d a r e i d e n t i c a l t o th e i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d i n th e s u b s e q u e n ta c t i o n - - a l th o u g h M&M con t end s that i t s const i tuti on al cl ai m s pl eaded here presentdiffer ent i ssues fr om tho se raised in the stat e p roc ee d ing s, a c o m p arison o f th e E H B ’s an d C o m m o n w ea lth C o u rt ’s concl us i ons w i th M & M ’ s cl ai m s s how s the i dent i tyof the i s s ues . I n or dert o pr evai l on i t s fi rs tcou nt fora subst anti ve d ue p rocess viol at i on ari si ng from a m un i ci pal l and use decis i on , M & M m ustest abli sh t hat ( 1) i thas a prop ertyi nter estprot ect ed b ydu e process, and ( 2) the governm ent ’ s depr i vat i on of thatpr opertyi nt er es t“s hocks the cons ci ence . ” U ni t ed Art is t

s Theatr e C i r cui t

, I nc. v. Tw p. of W ar r i ngton , 316 F. 3d 392, 399- 400 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . T he EH B and C om m onw eal th C our tboth found thatthe D E P “ces s at i on or der s w er e r eas onabl e and i n acc or dance w i th the l aw i n al l r es pect s . ” B eca us e the 8T h e C o m m o n w ea lth C o u rtco n side red M & M ’s arg u m en t th at th e D E P o rde rs w ere 9 “a n ex ce ssive ex erc ise o f re g u lat o ryau tho ri ty . ” (A . 8 5 8 . ) T h e C o m m o n w ea lth C o u rt found, “A ft era thor ough r evi ew of the evi dence s uppor t i ng the B oar d’ s fi ndi ngs and the law u p o n w h ich th eir de cisi o n w as b ase d , w e c an n o t agre e w ith M & M that the B o ard c o m m itt e d e rro rs o f

law in n o t f

in d in g th a t th e D e p a rtm e n t’s a c tio n s w e re u n re a so n a b le o r o u ts id e its a u th o ri ty.” ( A . 8 6 1 .) -12- D E P ’s co n d u ct ha s b ee n fo u n d to b e re aso n ab le, the issu e c o n ce rnin g w h ethe r th e D E P ’s conduct“s hocks the cons ci ence ” al r eadyhas been de t erm i ned. I ndeed, the D E P’ s act i ons cannotbe both r eas onabl e and “ s hock the cons ci ence ” atthe s ame t i m e. A ccor di ngl y , t he Di s tr i c tCo u r tp r o p e r l yb a rr e d th i s c l a i m. T o pr ove i t s s econd c ountforan equa l pr ot ect i on vi ol at i on undera “c l as s of one” theo ry , M & M m u st pro v e tha t ( 1 ) th e d ef en d an ts trea ted it diffe ren tl yfro m o thers s i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed, ( 2) the def endant s di d s o i nt ent i onal l y , and ( 3) ther e w as no r at i onal b a s is f o r t h e d if f e re n c e in tr e a tm e n t. Hi l lv . Bo r o u g h o f Ku t z t o wn , 455 F. 3d 225, 239 ( 3d C i r . 2006) . A gai n, beca us e the D E P’ s conductw as al r eadyfound t o be r eas onabl e, t he i s s ue conc erni ng the r at i onal i tyof the D E P’ s or der s has al r eadybeen de t erm i ned. T he 9 Di s tr i c tCo u r tp r o p e r l yb a rr e d th i s c l a i m. W ith reg ard to it s claim fo r a v iolati o n o f p roc ed u ral du e p roc ess, M & M ’s th ir d count , M & M m us tpr ove ( 1) a depr i vat i on of an i ndi vi dual i nt er es tencompas s ed byt he Four t eenth A m endment ’ s pr ot ect i on of l i fe, l i berty , orpr operty , and ( 2) thatthe p ro c e d u re s a v a ila b le d id n o t p ro v id e d u e p ro c e s s o f la w . Id . a t2 3 3 - 3 4 . E v e n i f M&M c o u ld sh o w th a t itw a s d e p riv e d o f a p ro p e rtyin ter e st, th e p rio r p ro c e e d in g s d e m o n stra te-13-

th a t it r e c e iv e d “ n o tic e a n d o p p o rt u n ity f o r h e a ri n g a p p ro p ri a te to th e n a tu re o f th e c a s e ,” and thatthe opportuni tyt o be hea r d w as “ata meani ngful t i m e. ” C l eve land B d. of E duc. v . L o u d e rm ill , 470 U . S. 532, 542, 547 ( 1985) . I ndeed, the ext ens i ve pr ocedur al hi s t or yof M & M ’ s chal l enges t o the D E P ces s at i on or der s , w hi ch w ound thei rw aythr ough the admi ni s tr at i ve court s and up t o the Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our t , s how s thatthe due process i tw as provi ded w el l excee ds t he m i nim um requi rem ents . T hu s, w e w i l l al so a f f i r m th e Di s tr i c tCo u r to n th e d i s mi s s a l o f th i s c l a i m. F i nall y , t o p rove i t s fourth co un tfor Fir stA m end m ent vi olat i on s, M & M m ust sh o w that it s co n sti tuti o n all yp rotec ted c o n d u ct w as a “su b stan ti al” o r “m o ti v ati n g fa ctor” in th e d e f

e n d a n ts ’ a c tio n s . Mt. H e a lth y C ity S c h . D ist. B d . o

f E d u c . v. D o

y le , 42 9 U. S. 274, 287 ( 1977) ( ci t i ng A r l i ngt on Hei ght s v. Metr o. H

ous . D ev. C or

p. , 429 U . S. 252, 2 7 0 -7 1 n .2 1 (1 9 7 7 )). If M & M c a rrie s th is b u rd e n , the b u rd e n sh if ts to th e d e f

e n d a n ts to s h o w “ b ya p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e e v i d e n c e th a t[ th e y ] wo u l d h a v e r e a c h e d th e s a me deci s i on . . . even i n the abs ence of the pr ot ect ed conduc t . ” I d. T he D i s tr i ctC our tfound thateven i f M & M s uffi ci ent l yengage d i n Fi r s tA m endmentact i vi ty , and thatact i vi tyw as a s ubs t ant i al orm ot i vat i ng fac t ori n the def endant s ’ deci s i on t o r et al i at e, the EH B and C o m m o n w e a lth C o u rt o p in io n s s h o w th a t th e D E P h a d “ n o les s re stric tiv e m e a n s to res t ore and repl ace t he lostw at er s up pli es” and that the D E P “had no cho i ce bu tt o cease the oper at i on. ” A ccor di ngl y , the D i s tr i ctC our tconcl uded thatthe i s s ue of w hetherthe defe ndant s w oul d have r eac hed the s ame deci s i on al r eadyhad bee n deci ded bythe pr i orT o the ext entthatM & M ’ s compl ai ntcont ai ns a cl ai m thatthe def endant s cons pi r ed 10 t o vi ol at e i t s cons t i tut i onal r i ght s , thatcl ai m fai l s . W i thoutanyunder l y i ng cons t i tut i onal v io la tio n s , M & M c a n n o t m a in ta in a c o n s p ir a c yc la im . A di cke s v. S. H. Kr es s & Co. , 398 U . S. 144, 150 ( 1970) ( expl ai ni ng thatfora cons pi r acycl ai m br oughtpur s uantt o § 1983, a p lain tiff

m u st s h o w th a t tw o o r m o re c o n sp ira to rs r e a c h e d a n a g re e m e n t to d e p riv e h im o r he r of a c o n sti tuti o n al ri g h t “un d er c o lor o f law ”). S ev era l def

en d an ts po int ou t, an d w e ind ep en d en tl yrec o g n ize, th at M & M ’s 11 c o m p la in t c o u ld h a v e b e e n d is m is s e d o n o th e r l e g a l th e o ri e s . G uthr i e v. Lady Jane C o llie r ie s , In c ., 7 2 2 F . 2 d 1 1 4 1 , 1 1 4 5 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 8 3 ) ( “ An a p p e l l a t e c o u r tma ya f f i r m a r es ul tr eac hed bythe di s tr i ctcourton di ffe r entr eas ons , as l ong as the r ecor d s uppor t s t he j u d g me n t . ” ) . Be c a u s e th e a p p l i c a t i o n o f th e i s s u e p r e c l u s i o n d o c tr i n e wa s a p p r o p r i a t e , we d o n o tn e e d t o d i s c u s s th o s e a l t e rn a t i v e b a s e s f o rd i s mi s s a l . F u r th e r mo r e , b e c a u s e we f i n d th a tth e d o c tr i n e b a r s a l l o f M &M ’ s c l a i ms , we d o n o tn e e d t o c o n s i d e rwh e th e rs o me of i t s cl ai m s ar e al s o barr ed bycl ai m pr ecl us i on. -14- adj udi cat i on. W e agr ee, and thi s cl ai m w as pr oper l ydi s m i s s ed. 10 I I I . C oncl usi on T he fa ct s and al l egat i ons conce rni ng the s hut - dow n of M & M ’ s quarrybeca us e of the dew at er i ng of nei ghbor i ng w el l s ar e compl ex and vol um i nous . N everthel es s , havi ng had a f ul l and fa i roppor tuni tyt o l i t i gat e thos e i s s ues , M & M i s barr ed fr om as ki ng anothercourtt o w ei gh i n on the s ubs t ance of i t s cl ai m s beca us e al l the i s s ues pr es ent ed byM & M her e have al r eadybeen de ci ded bythe pr i oradj udi cat i ons . T hi s i s pr eci s el yt he p u rp o s e o f

th e is s u e p re c lu s io n d o c tr in e . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill a f f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt. 11