Opinion ID: 2975704
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Preclusion and Void for Vagueness

Text: At the outset, the state suggests in its brief that the doctrine of res judicata (or claim preclusion) should bar the plaintiffs’ action here in light of a prior suit that Hamilton’s Bogarts brought challenging the Liquor Control Commission’s Rule 11 after it was ticketed numerous times for violating the rule. In that action, heard by this Court on appeal, Bogarts challenged the Rule as unconstitutionally vague, which it again does here. See Hamilton v. Roberts, 165 F.3d 27 (Table), 1998 WL 639158, at -7 (6th Cir., Sept. 10, 1998) (unpublished opinion). This Court upheld the district court’s rejection of this challenge at summary judgment, ruling that the provision was not vague whatsoever. Id. In this argument, the state appears to confuse the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion). The state argues that “[t]his Court’s prior determination in Hamilton v. Roberts, that Liquor Control Commission Rule 11 was not void for vagueness is res judicata as to Appellants’ identical First Amendment challenge to that rule in this case.” Appellees’ Br. at 15. We “may look to the common law or to the policies supporting res judicata and collateral estoppel in assessing the preclusive effect of decisions of other federal courts.” Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 96 (1980). In contrast, when considering the preclusive effect of a state court judgment, we must look to the law of that state. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1738. Because the judgment upon which the State relies for its preclusion argument was issued by a federal court, we look to federal law to determine its preclusive effect. This Court has described res judicata as “extinguish[ing] ‘all rights of the plaintiff to remedies against the defendant with respect to all or any part of the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out of which the action arose.’” Walker v. General Tel. Co., 25 F. App’x 332, 336 (6th Cir. 2001). The broad sweep of res judicata is likely inapplicable here, as one of the required elements is that the 4issues raised in the subsequent action were raised or should have been raised in the first lawsuit. Id. Here, although Rule 11 was challenged in the first lawsuit, Rule 9 was not, presumably because it was only Rule 11 under which Bogarts was penalized at the time. The state has not argued or made any showing that Bogarts should also have challenged Rule 9 at the time. Because the current suit also includes additional challenges to both Rules beyond void for vagueness claims, it would be inappropriate to apply res judicata to the plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety. Even so, the related and narrower doctrine of collateral estoppel may well affect the void for vagueness claim that has already been litigated. This Court has listed four requirements for the application of collateral estoppel: (1) the precise issue raised in the present case must have been raised and actually litigated in the prior proceeding; (2) determination of the issue must have been necessary to the outcome of the prior proceeding; (3) the prior proceeding must have resulted in a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the party against whom estoppel is sought must have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding. NAACP, Detroit Branch v. Detroit Police Officers Ass’n (DPOA), 821 F.2d 328, 330 (6th Cir. 1987). 4 The elements of res judicata are, in their entirety, that “(1) there is a final decision on the merits of the first action by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) the second action involves the same parties, or their privies, as the first; (3) the second action raises an issue actually litigated or which should have been litigated in the first action; and (4) there is identity of claims.” Walker v. General Tel. Co., 25 F. App’x 332, 336 (6th Cir. 2001). No. 06-1436 Hamilton’s Bogarts, Inc., et al. v. State of Michigan, et al. Page 5 Because collateral estoppel precludes future litigation of one specific issue, and because that is what the state effectively asks us to find, we construe their argument as one for collateral estoppel rather than res judicata, despite the substitution of one term for the other in the state’s brief.5 The void for vagueness challenge to Rule 11 meets all four of the requirements for collateral estoppel, as it was actually litigated in the prior case, it was essential to the holding that Rule 11 was constitutional, there was a final judgment on the merits, and so far as we can tell, the plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. With regard to the fourth element, the plaintiffs fail to address the preclusion issue at all in their brief, giving us little reason to conclude otherwise. Further, although Polzin was not a named party in the first suit, this Court has stated that collateral estoppel extends to “privies” of the party to the first lawsuit. Verizon North Inc. v. Strand, 367 F.3d 577, 583 (6th Cir. 2004); see also Evans v. Pearson Enter., Inc., 434 F.3d 839, 850 n.5 (6th Cir. 2006) (stating that employee who shares interest in litigation with his employer is in privity with employer for collateral estoppel purposes). Because Polzin has an employment relationship with Bogarts, shares a common legal interest in the outcome of this claim with Bogarts, and has presented us with no argument as to why she should not be precluded based on her employer’s prior litigation of an identical claim, we conclude that collateral estoppel can apply against both plaintiffs here with respect to the void for vagueness challenge to Rule 11. Although the vagueness challenge to Rule 9 was not actually litigated, and therefore cannot be collaterally estopped, the prior panel’s rationale provides persuasive authority for rejecting the void for vagueness challenge to Rule 9. See Hamilton, 1998 U.S. App. Lexis 22653, at  21 (“[T]here can be no doubt as to what conduct the rule prohibits.”). If anything, Rule 9 is less vague than Rule 11, as it specifically defines body parts that cannot be exposed in a licensed premises. Plaintiffs seize on the words “other type of nudity” used in Rule 9. On its own, this term could well be considered vague, but the full clause in which it is used makes clear that in addition to the Rule’s independent prohibitions, it also prohibits “other types of nudity prohibited by statute or local ordinance.” Thus, the clause in question would appear to simply seek to avoid preempting the application of any other state laws or local ordinances that ban nudity. Even if it might be confusing that nudity is governed by more than one statute or ordinance, this provision does not make Rule 9 itself vague, as the nudity it prohibits is fairly well defined. If there are indeed other statutes or local ordinances that prohibit nudity and are incorporated into this rule, plaintiffs’ would have to at least identify them for us before we can say that they are vague. For these reasons we affirm the district court’s rejection of the plaintiffs’ void for vagueness argument with respect to both rules.