N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
TAR AH SAHLB ER G, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. P.S.C . INC
. ; ADAM S & ADAM S LAW , P.S., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-35651 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-01457-R SL
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R obe rt S. La snik, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

Se pte m be r 3, 2015 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : M c KEOW

N, GOULD, a

nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Tarah Sah lbe rg a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s sum m a ry judgm e nt dismissing he r c la im s a ga inst P.S.C ., Inc . a nd Ada m s & Ada

m s La w unde r the Fa ir De bt C olle c tion Pra c tic e s Ac t (FDC PA) and the W a shington C onsum e r Prote c tion Ac t (C PA). In 2012, Ada

m s & Ada

m s brought a

c olle c tion a c tion on be ha lf of its



# FIL ED SEP 29 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.c lie nt P.S.C . a g a inst Sa hlbe rg in King C ounty

Supe rior C ourt. Sahlbe rg ra ise d
a ffirm a tive de fe nse s, inc luding viola tions of theFDC PA and the C PA. The Supe rior C ourt gra

nte d sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of P.S.C
. W e e ks la

te r, Sahlbe rg file d this suit in fe d e ra l c ourt a lle ging viola tions of theFDC PA and C PA
a ga inst P.S.C . a

nd Ada m s & Ada

m s. The distric t c ourt gra nte d sum m ary judgm e nt on the grounds of re s judic a t a and c olla te ra l e stoppe l. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

n d we a ffirm
. 1 W e re vie w a grant of sum m ary judgm e nt d

e nov o . C

lark v . Be ar Ste arns & C o., Inc
. , 966 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th C ir. 1992). W e a pply W a shington Sta

te la w to de te rm i ne the pre c lusive e ffe c t of the sta t e c ourt judgm e nt. Se e K re me r v . C

he m. C onstr. C orp. , 456 U.S. 461, 466 (1982); 28 U.S.C . § 1738. Under W a shington la w, re s judic a t a

“ p rohibits the

re litiga tion of c la im s a

nd issue s tha

t we re litiga

te d,
or c ould ha

ve be e n litiga

te d, in a prior a c tion.” Pe de rson v . Potte r , 11 P.3d 833, 835 (W a sh. C t . App. 2000) (c iting Lov e ridge v . Fre d Me y e r , Inc
. , 887 P.2d 898, 900 (W a sh. 1995) (e n ba

nc )). For a

subse que nt a c tion to beba rre d by re s judic ata , the p rior judgm e nt m

ust be a fina l judgm e nt on them e rits, a nd the prior a

nd subse q ue nt a c tions m

ust ha ve ide ntic a l (1) pe rsons a

nd pa rtie s, (2) c a

use s of a c tion, (3) subje c t m a tte r, and (4) qua lity of pe rsons for or a ga inst whom the c l a im is

1 W e a lso de ny

Sahlbe rg’ s M otion for Le ave to File Supple m e nta l B rie f.

2m a de
. Id. In c onside ring whe the r two c a use s of a c t ion a

re ide ntic a l, W a shington
c ourts c onside r: “ (1) [W ] he the r rights or intere sts e s ta blishe d in the prior judgm e nt would be de stroy e d or im p a ire d by prose c ution of the se c ond a c tion; (2) whe the r substa ntia lly the sam e e vide nc e is pre se nte d in the two a c tions; (3) whe t he r the two suits involve

infringe m e nt of the sa

m e right; a

nd (4) whe the r the two suits a rise out of the sa m e tra n sa c tiona l nuc le us of fa c t s.” Rains v
. State , 674 P.2d 165, 168 (W a sh. 1983) (e n ba

nc ) (quoting C

onstantini v. Trans W

orld Airline

s , 681 F.2d 1199, 1201–02 (9th C ir. 1982)). Sahlbe rg’ s c la im s a ga inst P.S.C . a re ba rre d by re s judic at a . The sta

te c ourt’ s e ntry of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa

vor of P.S.C . wa s a fina l judgm e nt on them e rits. Se e Ensle y v . Pitc h e r , 222 P.3d 99, 103 (W a sh. C t . App. 2009). B oth the prior sta te c o urt litiga

t ion a nd the subse que nt fe d e ra l c ourt litiga t ion involve d Sahlbe rg and P.S.C ., so the re are ide ntic a l pa rtie s a nd qua lity of pe rsons in both ac tions. Pe de rson , 11 P.3d a

t 838. Thesubje c t

m atte r of the a ffirm ative de fe nse s to the sta te suit a nd the fe de ra l c l a im s he re is the sam e . The re are a l so ide ntic a l c a use s of
a c tion: P.S.C
. ’ s rights e sta blishe d in the sta

te c ourt judgm e nt would beim pa ire d by Sahlbe rg’ s fe de ra l c ourt a c tion, a nd both suits pre se nt substa n tia l ly the sa m e e vide nc e , involvethe infringe m e nt of the sa m e rights, a

nd a rise from the sa m e transa c tiona l nuc le us of fa c ts. Although Sa hlbe rg a sse rte d

the FDC PA and C PA 3c la im s a s a ffirm a tive de fe nse s, unde r W a s hington la wthe doc t

rine of re s judic ata
a pplie s e q ua lly to c l a im s a

nd a ffirm ative de fe nse s. Se e Sy mington v . Hudson, 243 P.2d 484, 488 (W a sh. 1952); Fe d. De posit Ins. C

orp. v . Dav i dy uk, No. C 13- 1592JLR , 2014 W L 2893309, a t *11 (W
. D. W a sh. June 25, 2014). W e ne xt a ddre ss the c la im s re lating to Ada m s & Ada

m s. Unde r W a shington la w, c olla te ra l e s toppe l a

pplie s whe n the following e le m e nts a re m e t: “ (1) ide ntic a l issue s; (2) a

fina l judgm e nt on them e rits; (3) thepa rty a ga inst whom

the ple a is
a sse rte d m

u st ha ve be e n a pa rty to or in privity

with a pa rty to the prior
a djudic a tion; a

n d (4) a p p lic a tion of the doc trine m ust not work a

n injustic e on the pa rty a ga inst whom

the doc trine is to bea

pplie d .” Southc e nte r

J oint Ve nture

v . N at’l De moc raticPolic

y C omm., 780 P.2d 1282, 1284 (Wa sh. 1989) (e n ba nc ) (quoting Shoe mak

e r v . Bre me rton , 745 P.2d 858, 860 (W a sh. 1987) (e n ba nc )). The issue m

ust a lso ha

v e be e n m ate ria l a

nd e sse ntia l to thefirst judgm e nt. Se e East v . Fie lds, 259 P.2d 639, 640 (W a sh. 1953) (e n ba n c ). W a shington c ourts

“ a p ply nonm utua l c olla

te ra l e stoppe l so long a s the pa rty a ga i nst whom

pre c lusion is sought wa s a

pa rty or in privity

with a pa rty to the prior litiga

tion a n d ha d a full
and fa ir opportunity

to litiga te the issue in que s tion.” State v . Mullin-C

oston , 95 P.3d 321, 324 (W a sh. 2004) (e n ba nc ). Although re s judic ata ba rs c la im s tha

t
c ould ha v e be e n ra ise d in a

prior a c tion, Pe de rson , 11 P.3d a t 835, c olla

te ra l 4e stoppe l ba

rs issue s tha

t we re pre viously

ra ise d a nd litiga te d. Yak ima C nty . v . Yak ima C nty . Law Enforc e me nt Offic e rs Guild, 237 P.3d 316, 331 (W a sh. C t. App. 2010). Sahlbe rg’ s c la im s a ga inst Ada m s & Adam s are ba

rre d by c o lla t e ra l e stoppe l. The issue s ra ise d a

re ide ntic a l to thosera ise d in the sta te c o urt, whe re Sahlbe rg’ s c ounse l a lle ge d v i olations of theFDC PA an d C PA a s a ffirm ative de fe nse s. Sum m ary judgm e nt is a

fina l judgm e nt on them e rits. Sa hlbe rg, the pa

rty a ga inst whom c olla te ra l e stoppe l is a sse rte d, wa s a pa rty in the prior a djudic ation. The re is no injustic e to Sa

hlbe rg, who ha d the opportunity to litiga te he r FDC PA a

n d C PA
c la im s in the prior sta

te c ourt a c tion. Thesta

te c ourt de c ision, re nde ring sum m ary judgm e nt for P.S.C . a ga inst Sa hlbe rg, ne c e ssa

rily re je c te d the a ffirm ative de fe nse s that Sahlbe rg ha d ra ise d. This re je c tion of thea ffirm ative de fe nse s ba se d on the FDC PA and C PA c la im s wa s m ate ria l a nd e sse ntia l to thesta

t e c ourt’ s de c ision to
award sum

m ary judgm e nt. The issue s we re a c tua l ly litiga te d, a nd c olla te ra l
e stoppe l a pplie s to pre c lude c la im s he re a ga inst Ada m s & Ada

m s ba se d on the FDC PA and C PA. AFFIRM E D.

5