Opinion ID: 411732
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: collateral estoppel claim

Text: 3 The district court in the instant case held that Citadel I laid appellant's claims to rest. Appellant had based its first action directly on the Taking Clause of the Fifth Amendment, incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as on 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 (1976). That action sought damages and an injunction enjoining the allegedly unconstitutional freeze on its property. Governmental agencies had planned to build a highway in the vicinity of appellant's property. In the mid 1960's these agencies proscribed further development on property situated in the path of the proposed highway. Some ten years later, however, plans had not been finalized nor had money been allotted for the construction. The district court in the first action held a full bench trial on appellant's claims. The court decided in favor of appellant on all but the claim for damages. Neither side appealed from the final judgment, although appellant's motion before trial to join additional defendants, including the defendants in the instant action, had been denied on the ground that it was not timely. 2 4 Appellant commenced this second action against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Puerto Rico Highway Authority, and the Puerto Rico Land Authority while the first action was pending. 3 Appellant makes no claim that it did not receive a fair opportunity to litigate its case fully in Citadel I. The district court held that Citadel I precluded appellant from relitigating the same issues in Citadel II. See Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 331-33 (1979). Although the factual issues may have been identical, defendants' different identities in the two actions make reliance on collateral estoppel inappropriate. 5 While the traditional mutuality requirement for issue preclusion has been relaxed, e.g., Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313, 332-37 (1971), affirmative use of collateral estoppel by a nonparty still must be premised on the identity of issues in the two actions. See generally Restatement (Second) of Judgments Sec. 68 (Tent. Draft No. 4, 1977). Appellees have not demonstrated that the issue of defendants' liability in Citadel II is the same as that in Citadel I. The district court in the first action may have declined to award damages against the defendant public officials for any number of reasons that would not immunize the governmental entities in the second action. The district court's failure in Citadel I to specify its grounds for denying damages makes this likely. The issue of the governmental entities' liability for alleged unconstitutional action not having been litigated, collateral estoppel does not bar appellant's second action. The critical question therefore is whether appellant has asserted a cognizable theory that would render the governmental entities liable for damages. We turn now to a consideration of this question.