N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
DAVID E. OLSON a

nd AB SOLUTE ENVIR ONM ENTAL SER VIC ES, INC ., Pla i ntiffs-Appe lla

nts, v. M ARK O’ B R IEN; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 14-35795 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-00245-JW S M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ala ska John W . Se dwic k, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm itte d August 3, 2016 Anc hora ge , Ala ska B e fore : FISHER , PAEZ, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s . Pla intiffs Da

v id E. Olson a

nd Absolute

Environm e nta l Se rvic e s, Inc . (“ Pla intiffs” ) a

ppe a l the dism issa l of the ir c la i m s a ga inst M ark O’ B rie n, Ja m e s C antor, a nd R ic ha rd W e lsh on re s judic ata

grounds. W e re ve rse and re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. 

# FIL ED AUG 15 2016 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 36-3.1. In e va luat ing whe the r re s judic ata ba rs litiga t ion in fe de ra l c ourt a fte r re late d sta te c o urt litiga

t ion, we “ g ive to a

sta te -c ourt judgm e nt the sa

m e pre c lusive e ffe c t a s would begive n tha

t judgm e nt unde r the la

w of the State in whic h the judgm e nt wa s re nde re d.” Migra v . W a r re n C ity Sc h. Dist. Bd. of Educ
. , 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984). In Ala s ka , “ [t] he e le m e nts ne c e ssa ry to the doc trine ’ s a

pplic at ion a

re (1) a fina l judgm e nt on them e rits, (2) from a c ourt of c om

pe t e nt jurisdic tion, (3) in a disputebe twe e n

the sa m e pa rtie s (or the ir privie s) a

bout thesa

m e c a use of a c tion.” C onitz v . Alask

a State C o mm’n for Human Rights , 325 P.3d 501, 507 (Ala ska 2014) (inte rna l quota

t ion m a rks om itte d). In a d dition, re s judic ata doe s not a

pply whe re the pa

rty a ga i n st whom

it is a sse rte d “ la c ke d [a ] ‘ full a n d fa ir opportunity

to litiga te his c la im s.’ ” Id. at 508 (quoting B e e g an v . State

, De p’t of Transp. &

Pub. Fac ilitie s , 195 P.3d 134, 139 (Ala ska 2008)). Pla intiffs did not ha

ve a full a nd fa ir opportunity

to litiga te the i r c la im s in the p rior sta

te c ourt proc e e d ing. The prior proc e e ding wa s a n a dm inistra

tive a ppe a l of a c onstruc tion c ontra c t dispute . Ala ska Stat. § 36.30.627; Ala ska R . App. P. 609(b). Although the supe rior c ourt he ld a

lim i te d tria l de novo to inve stiga te a lle ge d im

proprie tie s in thede c ision-m aking proc e ss of the De pa rtm e nt of Transporta

tion a nd Public Fa c ilitie s (“ DOTPF” ), the sc ope of the c ourt’ s inquiry wa s lim ite d to re vie wing thede c ision of theDOTPF to de ny a dditional
2c om

pe nsation unde r the c o ntra c t. Pla intiffs c ould ha ve brought the ir a dditional dam a ge s c la im s in a

se pa rate suit; we are not pe rsua de d, howe ve r, the y would ha ve ha d a full a nd fa ir opportunity

to litiga te those c la im s within the ir a dm i nistra tive a ppe a l. Se e Balough v . Fairbank s N orth Star Borough , 995 P.2d 245, 256 (Ala ska 2000) (holding tha

t the supe rior c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in bifurc ating a litiga nt’ s c l a im s into a

n a dm inistra

tive a ppe a l a nd a se pa ra t e § 1983 c la im ); se e also J & S Se rv s., Inc
. v . Tomte r , 139 P.3d 544, 548-49 (Ala ska 2006) (holding tha

t an unsuc c e ssful bidde r for a sta te c ontra c t wa s pe rm itte d to filea c la im a ga inst a ge nc y offic ia l s se pa

ra t e from its a dm inistra

tive a ppe a l, but not disc

ussing re s judic ata ). Thus, thedistric t c ourt e rre d in dismissing Plaintiffs’ c la im s on re s judic ata grounds. 2. De fe nda

nts a rgue , in the a lte rnative , tha t c olla te ra l e s toppe l ba

rs Pla intiffs’ c la im s. B e c a

use the distric t

c ourt dismisse d the c a se on re s judic ata grounds, it did not re a c h this issue . W e the re fore re m and for the distric t c ourt to de te rm ine in the first insta nc e whe the r som e or a ll of Pla intiffs’ c la im s a re ba rre d by c olla t e ra l e stoppe l. RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D.

3