Opinion ID: 1179958
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Collateral Estoppel Effect of Ulaleo

Text: In addition to our own conclusion that PDF seeks retrospective relief which is barred by sovereign immunity, we are bound by the Ninth Circuit's adjudication in Ulaleo, in which the Ninth Circuit held: The Complaint is that sometime in the past, the BLNR undertook an action, the land exchange, which allegedly injured the plaintiffs by violating the trust of which the plaintiffs are beneficiaries.... The immediate relief plaintiffs seek would require the state to purchase the lands from its present holder by way of cash or other land. We hold that to grant the requested relief would be a retrospective remedy.... If the trust duty was violated, it happened when the BLNR executed the exchange. Ulaleo, 902 F.2d at 1399-1400. Thus, the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction has previously determined the retrospective nature of PDF's illegal land exchange claims, and the state courts are precluded from relitigating this issue in the context of PDF's state law claims. See, e.g., Morneau v. Stark Enters., 56 Haw. at 423, 539 P.2d at 475 (collateral estoppel precludes the relitigation of an issue which was decided in a prior suit on a different claim). PDF had a full and fair opportunity to argue that it was in fact seeking prospective relief, and reframing its prayer for relief does not entitle it to reargue claims based on the allegedly illegal land exchange. See Bolte v. Aits, Inc., 60 Haw. 58, 587 P.2d 810; see also Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980) (holding that a federal court cannot relitigate an issue already decided in state court when the party against whom the earlier decision is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate that issue in the earlier case). [24] In light of our rulings that PDF's breach of trust claims are barred by sovereign immunity and the preclusive effect of Ulaleo, we need not reach the question of whether this court's decision in Dedman v. BLNR, 69 Haw. 255, 740 P.2d 28 (1987), also bars relitigation of claims arising out of the land exchange. [25]