Opinion ID: 213694
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: “[A] judgment on the merits in a first suit precludes relitigation in a second suit of issues actually litigated and determined in the first suit.” In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Supreme Court has recognized the applicability of issue preclusion to findings in administrative proceedings where the administrative body was “acting in a judicial capacity and resolves disputed issues of fact properly before it which the parties have had an adequate opportunity to litigate.” United States v. Utah Constr. & Mining Co., 384 U.S. 394, 422 (1966). The Claims Court has, on numerous occasions, afforded Interior Board decisions issue preclusive effects. See, e.g., Klump v. United States, 38 Fed. Cl. 243 (1997). UNDERWOOD LIVESTOCK v. US 7 As this court has made clear, a party is barred from relitigating an issue if: (1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) the party against whom estoppel is in- voked had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action. Innovad Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 260 F.3d 1326, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Here, the issue underlying Underwood’s takings claim is whether Underwood possessed a cognizable property interest in the dam structure. This, in turn, hinges upon whether Underwood’s predecessors-in-interest possessed a valid right-of-way entitling them to build the dam structure on federal land. This precise issue was actually litigated and adjudicated before the Interior Board. The Interior Board determined that Underwood’s predecessors-in-interest lacked a valid right-of-way. Wilson, 156 IBLA at 98-99. This issue was essential to the Interior Board’s decision because it served as the basis for its conclusion that Underwood’s predecessors-in-interest trespassed on public lands by building the dam structure. Id. Although Underwood itself was arguably not a party to the Interior Board decision, the Supreme Court has articulated six categories where nonparty issue preclusion applies. Taylor v. Sturgell, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 2172 (2008). Here, the facts underlying the applicability of at least one of those exceptions are undisputed. “[N]onparty preclusion may be justified based on a variety of pre-existing substantive legal relationships between the person to be bound and a party to the judgment.” Id. (citations and quotations omitted). One such qualifying relationship is that of preceding and succeeding owners of property. Id. 8 UNDERWOOD LIVESTOCK v. US Because Underwood’s predecessors-in-interest were parties to the Interior Board’s decision, Underwood is bound by the resolution of this issue and cannot relitigate this issue. Underwood argues that the Claims Court was “collaterally estopped under the doctrine of res judicata and issue preclusion in claiming Underwood . . . was a party and is bound to the decision of the Interior Board.” Appellant’s Br. 21. In advancing this argument, Underwood cites a number of allegedly conflicting cases and simply concludes that “[a]ll the before mentioned cases create[] a finality that is final and arises in the context of statutes providing for appellate review of ‘final Decisions’ and invokes the doctrine of res judicata and collateral estoppel.” Id. at 22. Underwood’s challenge to the application of issue preclusion here is based on its contention that Underwood was not a party to the Interior Board proceeding. But that argument is entirely misplaced as the Claims Court did not find that Underwood was, in fact, a party to the Interior Board proceeding. Instead, it relied upon the Supreme Court’s acceptance of nonparty issue preclusion against successors-in-interest. By focusing on the wrong issue, Underwood fails to explain why the exception actually relied upon by the Claims Court should not apply here. At bottom, Underwood is precluded from asserting any property interest in the dam structure.