Opinion ID: 2547502
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Procedural History: State Court Action

Text: ¶ 17 Following the dismissal in the federal court, Oman filed an action in state court. In his complaint, Oman alleged the same five causes of action that had been dismissed without prejudice by the federal court, including the breach of contract claim. The state district court granted summary judgment to the District on Oman's breach of contract claim, relying on two alternative bases. First, the court independently looked at the issues and found that Oman had been properly terminated for cause and that the District was not contractually required to give any prior notice, opportunity to be heard, or progressive discipline to [Oman] prior to his termination. Second, the state district court noted that the findings and conclusions [of the federal court] involve precisely the same issues as those raised in [Oman's] breach of contract [claim]. The district court thus concluded that under the doctrine of issue preclusion, it was bound by the federal court's determinations that Oman was properly terminated for cause under the Classified Agreement and that Oman was not contractually entitled to the procedures he sought. [3] ¶ 18 On appeal, Oman argues that both conclusions were erroneous. We hold that a combination of the two theories on which the district court relied provides a sufficient basis on which to affirm the summary judgment.