N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT K. H., a s gua

rdia n for he r m inor da

ughte r D.H.; K. H., individua

lly ; G. H., individually , Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla nts,
v. OLYM PIA SC HOOL DISTRIC T, a public c orporation; FR

EDER IC K DAVID STANLEY, individua

lly ; B ARB AR

A GREER , individually ; W ILLIAM V. LAHM ANN, individually ,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 16-35906 D.C . No. 3:16-c v-05507-B HS
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 B e nja m in H. Se ttle , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d June 5, 2018 ** Se attle , W a s hington 

# FIL ED JUN 07 2018 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).B e fore : B YB EE a n d N.R . SM ITH, C irc u it Judge s, a nd ANTOON, *** Distric t Judge
. Pla intiffs a

ppe a l the distric t

c o urt’ s dism issa l of the ir c om pla i nt a s ba

rre d by
re s judic ata . W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291 a

nd re vie w the distric t c o urt’ s dism issa l of pla intiffs’ c om pla int de novo. Intri-Ple

x Te c hs., Inc . v . C re st Grp., Inc
. , 499 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th C ir. 2007). W e a ffirm
. Pla intiffs a lle ge tha

t a n Oly m pia Sc hool Distric t bus drive r se xua l ly a buse d the i r m inor da

ughte r. Pla intiffs first sue d the Sc hool Distric t in W a shington sta te
c ourt, a sse rting c la im s for ne g lige nc e and ne g lige nt inflic tion of e m otiona l distre ss. Following a

jury tria l, the W a shington c ourt e nte re d judgm e nt for the Sc hool Distric t. Pla intiffs the n file d the insta nt a c t ion in fe de ra l c ourt a ga inst theSc hool Distric t a nd thre e of its e m

ploy e e s , Fre de ric k Sta

nle y , B arbara Gre e r, and W illia m Lahm ann (nam e d

in the ir offic i a l a

nd pe rsona l c a

pa c itie s ). Pla intiffs’ fe de ra l
c om pla i nt a sse rte d c la im s unde r 42 U.S.C
. § 1983 a nd TitleIX arising out of the
sam e e ve nts a s the ir prior sta te c ourt c o m

pla int. W e a pply W a shington la

w to de te rm ine the pre c lusive e ffe c t of the W a shington c ourt’ s judgm e nt. Se e , e . g. , S e w e r Ale rt C

o mm. v . Pie rc e C

ounty , 791 F.2d 796, 798–99 (9th C ir. 1986). Unde r W a shington la w, “ [r] e s judic ata

re fe rs to

* * * The Honora

ble John Antoon II, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the M iddle Distric t

of Florida , sitting by

de s igna tion. 2the p re c lusive e ffe c t of judgm e nts, inc luding the re litiga tion of c la i m s a

nd issue s that we re litiga

te d, or m i ght ha

ve be e n litiga

te d , in a prior a c tion.” Lov e ridge v . Fre d Me y e r, Inc
. , 887 P.2d 898, 900 (W a s h. 1995) (e n ba nc ) (quota

t ion m arks
om i tte d). “ For the doc trine to a pply , a prior judgm e nt m

ust ha ve a c onc urre nc e of ide n tity with a subse que nt a c tion in (1) subje c t m atte r, (2) c a

use of a c tion, and

(3) pe rsons a nd pa rtie s, a nd (4) the qua l ity

of the pe rsons for or a ga i nst whom the
c la im is m a de .” Id. ; a c c ord Rains v . State , 674 P.2d 165, 168 (W a s h. 1983) (e n ba nc ). All four e l e m e nts of re s judic ata are m e t with re s pe c t to pla intiffs’ c la im s
a ga inst theSc hool Distric t: in both the prior a nd pre se n t a c tions, plaintiffs’ c la im s
a ga inst theSc hool Distric t re ste d on the Sc h ool Distric t’ s e m ploy e e s’ c onduc t
re ga rding sc hool-bus sa fe ty , a rose from the sa m e tra nsa c tiona l nuc le us of fa c t, a nd im plic a t e d the sa

m e e vide nc e an d rights. Ac c ordingly , re s judic ata ba rs pla i ntiffs’
c la im s a ga inst the Sc h ool Distric t. Se e , e .g. , Ensle

y v . Pitc he r , 222 P.3d 99, 102–06 (W a sh. C t . App. 2009).

“ Offic ia l -c a

pa c ity suits . . . ‘ ge ne ra lly

re pre se n t only anothe r wa y of ple a ding a

n a c tion a ga inst a

n e n tity of whic h a

n offic e r is a

n a ge nt.’ ” K

e ntuc k y v . Graham , 473 U.S. 159, 165–66 (1985) (quoting Mone l l v . N .Y.C . De p’t of Soc

. Se rv s. , 436 U.S. 658, 690 n.55 (1978)). B e c a use pla intiffs’ c l a im s a ga inst the
3Sc hool Distric t a re ba rre d by re s judic ata , the ir c la im s a ga inst theSc hool Distric t’ s
e m ploy e e s in the ir offic ia l c a p a c itie s a re a lso ba rre d. Se e Se w e r Ale rt C

omm. , 791 F.2d at 799. Pla intiffs’ c la im s a ga inst the Sc hool Distric t ’ s e m ploy e e s in the ir pe rsona l
c a pa c itie s re st on thesa

m e a lle gations a s the fore going c la im s and like wise sha re ide n tity of subje c t

m atte r and c a

use of a c tion with the prior sta te c ourt a c tion. W ith re spe c t to thefina l two e le m e nts of re s judic ata , W a shington la w provide s that “ a pe rson m ust be a pa rty or in privity

to a pa rty in [the prior] litiga

tion a c tion be fore tha

t pe rson c an be bound by

its re sults.” Lov e ridge , 887 P.2d a t 903. “ The
e m ploy e r/e m

ploy e e re lationship is suffic ie nt to e sta b lish privity .” Ensle

y , 222 P.3d at 104. B e c a

use the prior a c tion a ga inst theSc hool Distric t turne d on the Sc hool Distric t’ s e m

ploy e e s ’ c onduc t surrounding the sa m e e ve nts a

t issue he re , Stan le y , Gre e r, and La

h m ann we re in privity with theSc hool Distric t, a nd pla i ntiffs’ c la im s a g a inst the m in the ir pe rsona l c a

pa c itie s a re ba rre d by re s judic a ta . Se e K

uhlman v . Thomas , 897 P.2d 365, 368–69 (Wa s h. C t . App. 1995). Pla intiffs did not se e k le ave to a m e nd the ir c om

pla int from

the distric t c ourt,
and a ny am e ndm e nt would befutile . The distric t c o urt did not a buse its disc re tion in dismissing plaintiffs’ c om pla int with pre

judic e . Se e

, e .g. , C h inatown N e ighborhood Ass’n v

. Harris , 794 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th C ir. 2015).

4AFFIRM E D.

5