Opinion ID: 5819072
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion for Issue Preclusion

Text: We review the “legal question of whether issue preclusion bars the relitigation of [an] issue . . . de novo.” Bell v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 85 F.3d 1451, 1453 (10th Cir. 1996); see also Guttman v. Khalsa, 669 F.3d 1101, 1109 (10th Cir. 2012) (“We review de novo the district court’s application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel, which is also known as issue preclusion.”). It has long been settled in the § 1983 context “that a federal court must give to a state-court judgment the same preclusive effect as would be given that judgment under the law of the State in which the judgment was rendered.” Migra v. Warrant City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 465 U.S. 75, 81 (1984). The Everharts seek to rely upon a New Mexico state court decision such that New Mexico issue preclusion law governs. Under New Mexico law, issue preclusion applies to foreclose relitigation if: (1) the party to be estopped was a party to the prior proceeding, (2) the cause of action in the case presently before the court is different from the cause of action in the prior adjudication, (3) the issue was actually litigated in the prior adjudication, and (4) the issue was necessarily determined in the prior litigation Ideal v Burlington Res. Oil & Gas Co. LP, 233 P.3d 362, 365–66 (N.M. 2010) (quoting Shovelin v. Cent. N.M. Elec. Coop., Inc., 850 P.2d 996, 1000 (N.M. 1993)).5 5 New Mexico Court of Appeals’ decisions, prior to Ideal v. Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Co. LP, 233 P.3d 362 (N.M. 2010), state the first element slightly differently and indicate that the New Mexico Supreme Court adopted a more flexible, “modern” approach that “dispens[ed] with the ‘same parties’ requirement” 11 Appellate Case: 20-2078 Document: 010110631019 Date Filed: 01/12/2022 Page: 12 Relative to the first element, “the doctrine of offensive collateral estoppel may be applied when a plaintiff seeks to foreclose the defendant from litigating an issue the defendant has previously litigated unsuccessfully regardless of whether plaintiff was privy to the prior action.” Silva v. State, 745 P.2d 380, 384 (N.M. 1987). However, a party may use issue preclusion offensively only “when the court deems it fundamentally fair to the parties.” Cherpelis v. Cherpelis, 914 P.2d 637, 641 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996). Relative to the fourth element, an issue is “necessarily determined” if it is resolved through a judgment that has become final. State ex rel. Martinez v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 898 P.2d 1256, 1260 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995). The Everharts moved to preclude relitigation on seventy-three items they contended “[t]he Fifth Judicial District Court and the New Mexico Court of Appeals in Cause [sic] Number D-506-JQ-2010-15-C ha[d] determined.” ROA Vol. I at 181. In October 2019, when the Everharts moved for issue preclusion, the Everharts’ appeal of the state trial court’s order awarding custody over S.E. Girl to an adoptive family pended before the New Mexico Court of Appeals. On March 10, 2020, three weeks before the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico denied the Everharts’ by allowing “privity” with a party from an earlier litigation to satisfy the first element. Reeves v. Wimberly, 755 P.2d 75, 78 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988) (citing Silva v. State, 745 P.2d 380, 384 (N.M. 1987)). While in Reeves the statement about privity of parties satisfying the first element is consistent with recent decisions by the New Mexico Court of Appeals, see e.g., Larsen v. Farmington Mun. Schs., 242 P.3d 493, 496 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010), Ideal is the most recent New Mexico Supreme Court case we located that announces the elements of issue preclusion. Nonetheless, because the Everharts have made no effort to satisfy the more flexible privity threshold, we proceed under the assumption that privity of parties can satisfy the first element. 12 Appellate Case: 20-2078 Document: 010110631019 Date Filed: 01/12/2022 Page: 13 petition for a writ of certiorari, the magistrate judge issued her findings and recommendations. The magistrate judge recommended denying the Everharts’ Motion for Issue Preclusion because (1) the state court action was not final where the writ of certiorari pended, and (2) the Everharts had not established that Ms. Becker and Ms. Valderaz were parties to the state action or in privity with CYFD. The Everharts’ objection to the magistrate judge’s finding contained a boilerplate assertion that they satisfied the four elements for issue preclusion: The Plaintiffs under New Mexico Law have demonstrated the four (4.) elements of Issue Preclusion, (1.) that being the Parties in the current action, were the same and in privity with the Parties in the current action; (2.) The subject matter of the two (2.) actions are different; (3.) the ultimate facts were actually litigated and; (4.) the facts were determined by the Court. Id. at 410. And the Everharts contended the ongoing state proceedings did not deprive the state trial court’s ruling of finality because the ongoing proceedings “only adresse[d] the issues of termination, and what is in the best interest of the minor [c]hildren.” Id. But the Everharts neither explained how Ms. Becker and Ms. Valderaz were in privity with CYFD, nor cited any case law for this proposition regarding privity. Nor did they offer any support for the proposition that a judgment could be final during the pendency of an appeal or alert the district court that the Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico had denied their petition for certiorari. See id. at 409–10. The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommended denial of the Motion for Issue Preclusion. The district court faulted the Everharts for not following 13 Appellate Case: 20-2078 Document: 010110631019 Date Filed: 01/12/2022 Page: 14 the local rules and for not including record citations and citations to authority in support of their motion or their objections to the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. The district court next concluded the Everharts failed to adequately object to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Ms. Becker and Ms. Valderaz were not in privity with CYFD. And, based on this deficiency, the district court determined it was unnecessary to address the merits of the Everharts’ other objections. For three reasons, we affirm the district court’s denial of the Everharts’ Motion for Issue Preclusion. First, specific to issue preclusion against Ms. Becker and Ms. Valderaz, the Everharts failed to advance a sufficient and specific objection to the magistrate judge’s conclusion that these two defendants were not in privity with CYFD. Accordingly, the firm waiver rule precludes appellate review of the denial of the Everharts’ Motion for Issue Preclusion as to Ms. Becker and Ms. Valderaz. Second, on appeal, the Everharts do not address either of the district court’s bases for denying their Motion for Issue Preclusion—that they did not follow the local rules and did not adequately object to the magistrate’s reasoning regarding the lack of privity. This omission on appeal is sufficient to affirm the district court’s denial of the motion. See Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, 1104 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he omission of an issue in an opening brief generally forfeits appellate consideration of that issue.”). Third, relative to Ms. Becker and Ms. Valderaz in their individual capacities, even if the Everharts had raised and properly pursued an objection to the magistrate judge’s conclusion on privity, such an argument could not 14 Appellate Case: 20-2078 Document: 010110631019 Date Filed: 01/12/2022 Page: 15 prevail. Ms. Becker and Ms. Valderaz were not parties to the state custody proceedings. And “privity does not exist where an initial lawsuit is brought against an employer and a second lawsuit is then brought against an employee acting in his or her individual capacity.” Deflon v. Sawyers, 137 P.3d 577, 640 (N.M. 2006). For these three reasons, we affirm the denial of the Everharts’ Motion for Issue Preclusion.