Opinion ID: 2632630
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The district court appropriately denied UNLV's request to apply issue preclusion based on the special code hearing

Text: UNLV contends the district court erred by denying a pretrial motion to establish issue preclusion based on the UCCSN code hearing. UNLV argues that the hearing process and the subsequent appeal to the Board of Regents established that UNLV terminated Sutton with just cause. Therefore, UNLV sought to prevent Sutton from arguing at trial that UNLV did not have just cause to terminate his employment. `The general rule of issue preclusion is that if an issue of fact or law was actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, the determination is conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties.'  [19] 'The doctrine provides that any issue that was actually and necessarily litigated in [case I] will be estopped from being relitigated in [case II].' [20] Issue preclusion may apply to administrative proceedings. [21] The availability of issue preclusion is a mixed question of law and fact. However, the legal issues predominate. [22] This court performs a de novo review of whether issue preclusion is available. [23] Once it is determined that issue preclusion is available, the actual decision to apply it is left to the discretion of the district court. [24] The three part test for applying issue preclusion is: (1) the issue decided in the prior litigation must be identical to the issue presented in the current action; (2) the initial ruling must have been on the merits and have become final; and (3) the party against whom the judgment is asserted must have been a party or in privity with a party to the prior litigation. [25] The issues decided during the 1999 UCCSN code hearing, and the subsequent appeal to the Board of Regents, were not identical to the issues presented in Sutton's district court complaint. The hearing panel did not consider Sutton's 1999 contract or his performance in 1999. To the contrary, the panel only heard evidence regarding events which took place in 1990 and 1991. Sutton sought relief for breach of the 1999 contract. Since the special hearing held by UNLV did not address Sutton's 1999 contract, but rather allegations dating back to 1990-91, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request to apply issue preclusion.