Opinion ID: 2625402
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: AWA I and AWA II involve the same parties and claims.

Text: Res judicata applies when two cases involve the same parties or their privies and the same causes of action. [28] The alliance argues that the differences between the AWA I and AWA II defendants and claims for relief were sufficient to avoid res judicata. The alliance first asserts that the parties are different because it sued the Board of Game and the Commissioner of Fish and Game in AWA I but it did not sue those defendants in AWA II. But in AWA II the alliance simply replaced lesser state entities with the State of Alaska. And in both cases the alliance sued the Governor of Alaska. Res judicata is not defeated by substituting one state entity for another when the claim is based on the same conduct, and when the same defense of non-justiciability applies regardless of which specific state entity is named as a defendant. The alliance next argues that the causes of action in the two cases differed considerably because the alliance dropped its request that the court transfer the board's regulatory authority to the Commissioner of Fish and Game until the defendants re-constituted the board's membership. But the court in AWA I dismissed all of the alliance's causes of action and claims for relief, not merely the request for injunctive relief. The remaining claims in AWA II are the same as in AWA I. Deleting one request for relief did not alter the underlying causes of action.