Opinion ID: 2547502
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Analysis: Issue Preclusion

Text: ¶ 27 In his reply brief to this court, Oman raises, for the first time, an additional argument to support his claim that summary judgment was inappropriate on his breach of contract claim. Oman contends that under any interpretation of the classified agreement, there was still a triable issue as to whether Oman's conduct was sufficient grounds for termination for cause. We could disregard this argument because it was not presented to the district court during the summary judgment proceedings. See State v. Labrum, 925 P.2d 937, 939 (Utah 1996) (Issues not raised before the trial court are usually waived and cannot be raised on appeal.). Nevertheless, we choose to address it, and we conclude that the issue was resolved by the federal district court and that the state district court was bound by the federal court's determination under the doctrine of issue preclusion. ¶ 28 The doctrine of res judicata embraces two distinct theories: claim preclusion and issue preclusion. Buckner v. Kennard, 2004 UT 78, ¶ 12, 99 P.3d 842. This appeal raises only the latter principle of issue preclusion. [5] Issue preclusion, which is also known as collateral estoppel, prevents parties or their privies from relitigating facts and issues in the second suit that were fully litigated in the first suit. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The purposes of issue preclusion include (1) preserving the integrity of the judicial system by preventing inconsistent judicial outcomes; (2) promoting judicial economy by preventing previously litigated issues from being relitigated; and (3) protecting litigants from harassment by vexatious litigation. Id. ¶ 14. ¶ 29 Issue preclusion applies only when the following four elements are met: (i) the party against whom issue preclusion is asserted must have been a party to or in privity with a party to the prior adjudication; (ii) the issue decided in the prior adjudication must be identical to the one presented in the instant action; (iii) the issue in the first action must have been completely, fully, and fairly litigated; and (iv) the first suit must have resulted in a final judgment on the merits. Collins v. Sandy City Bd. of Adjustment, 2002 UT 77, ¶ 12, 52 P.3d 1267 (internal quotation marks omitted). ¶ 30 Oman argues that issue preclusion does not apply in this case. Specifically, he argues that there was no final adjudication because the federal court dismissed his state law breach of contract claim without prejudice. ¶ 31 In making this argument, Oman confuses issue preclusion with claim preclusion. [C]laim preclusion bars a party from prosecuting in a subsequent action a claim that has been fully litigated previously. Snyder v. Murray City Corp., 2003 UT 13, ¶ 34, 73 P.3d 325 (emphasis added)(internal quotation marks omitted). On the other hand, issue preclusion ... prevents parties or their privies from relitigating facts and issues in the second suit that were fully litigated in the first suit. Id. ¶ 35 (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). While claim preclusion corresponds to causes of action, issue preclusion corresponds to the facts and issues underlying causes of action. And where two causes of action embody the same dispositive issue, a prior determination of that issue in the context of one cause of action can have a preclusive effect in later litigation regarding the other cause of action. As we have previously held, issue preclusion prevents the relitigation of issues that have been once litigated and determined in another action even though the claims for relief in the two actions may be different. Penrod v. Nu Creation Creme, Inc., 669 P.2d 873, 875 (Utah 1983) (emphasis added); see also Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27 (1982) (When an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, the determination is conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties, whether on the same or a different claim. (emphasis added)). That is precisely the situation in this case. ¶ 32 Underlying the § 1983 claim was the dispositive issue of whether the District breached the Classified Agreement when it fired Oman for cause. Indeed, when Oman filed his complaint in federal court, his basis for the § 1983 cause of action was twofold: (1) that the District's pre-termination conduct deprived him of due process rights secured by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and (2) that the District's decision to suspend, and later terminate, his employment violated the terms of the Classified Agreement. Thus, a resolution of the § 1983 claim, as framed by Oman, required the federal court to resolve the underlying issue of whether the District violated the Classified Agreement when it fired Oman. The issue was squarely before the federal court, was litigated by the parties, and was necessary to the court's final judgment on the § 1983 claim. [6] Accordingly, the federal court made findings and conclusions regarding the alleged breach of contract-including the previously quoted conclusion that the District had a sufficient basis for firing Oman for cause under the Classified Agreement-and these findings and conclusions are binding in subsequent actions under the doctrine of issue preclusion. ¶ 33 Although Oman's breach of contract claim was not litigated in the federal court, it is based upon the same underlying issue that was resolved by the federal court: whether the District had a sufficient basis for terminating Oman for cause under the Classified Agreement. The state district court was therefore bound by the federal court's conclusion that [Oman]'s representations to the District regarding his work hours provided a sufficient basis for termination for cause. Accordingly, even if Oman had argued to the district court that his conduct did not give the District a basis for terminating him for cause, the argument would have failed based on the federal court's prior ruling. We therefore hold that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the District on Oman's breach of contract claim.