Opinion ID: 2499652
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Superior Court's 2007 Dismissal Of Smith's Prior Claim Bars His Current Action.

Text: The superior court granted summary judgment to the State concluding that Smith's claim is barred by the operation of res judicata. Specifically, the superior court concluded that its 2007 final judgment dismissing Smith's substantially similar prior complaint operated to bar this subsequent action. Smith contests this point only summarily in his reply brief. [17] A judgment in a prior action will bar a subsequent action if the prior judgment was: (1) a final judgment on the merits, (2) from a court of competent jurisdiction, [and] (3) in a dispute between the same parties (or their privies) about the same cause of action. [18] The superior court entered an order of final judgment in 2007 dismissing Smith's claims on statute of limitation grounds and awarding attorney's fees and costs to the defendants. Under Alaska Civil Rule 41(b), involuntary dismissal of a case upon a defendant's motion and after consideration by the court operates as an adjudication upon the merits. There is no dispute that the superior court had jurisdiction over the matter. Smith's 2006 and 2011 complaints involved substantially the same parties and the same cause of action. In 2006 Smith named the State, the Office of the Governor, the judicial branch, and several incumbent and former government officials as defendants. [19] In his current action, Smith named the State, the governor, and two DNR officials as defendants. We have held that individual defendants newly named by virtue of their status as successors of previously named defendants are considered the privies for previous parties for the purpose of the res judicata analysis because they are essentially placeholders for previously named defendants. [20] Smith's claims against the governor and DNR officials were also asserted in 2006. As we noted in DeNardo v. Barrans , newly added commission members sued simply ... in their capacity as board members representing their agency, not alleged to have committed any specific wrongful acts, are not considered new parties. [21] And Smith has waived all claims against the individual defendants in his reply brief on appeal. The State is therefore the only remaining defendant and was also named as a party in 2006. The takings claim Smith asserted in 2006 is essentially the same as his current claim. Smith's 2006 complaint alleged that the State's characterization of the land as unoccupied was either deliberate fraud or careless error, that the State cannot pass clear title to lands it [did] not own, and that Smith's equitable title to the land is currently the superior title ... until such time as `due process and just compensation', under Article VIII, section 16 [of the Alaska Constitution] has been afforded to [him]. Smith's takings claims are substantially identical, and he is barred from relitigating a claim that was dismissed in 2007.