Opinion ID: 3032189
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Preclusion Against the Kafkas

Text: We next consider whether the Kafkas’ claims against the State of Montana, DFWP, and Jeff Hagener are barred by claim preclusion. The Kafkas have brought two earlier suits against these defendants, one in state court and one in federal court. A. The Kafkas’ State Court Suit: Preclusion of Claims Against the State of Montana and DFWP [3] When the district court decided this case, no final judgment had been entered in the Kafkas’ state court suit. However, the state trial court has now entered a final judgment dismissing their suit in its entirety. Kafka v. Montana Dep’t of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, DV-02-059 (February 8, 2005). In determining the preclusive effect of the Montana judgment, we apply Montana law. 28 U.S.C. § 1738. The final judgment of a trial court is entitled to preclusive effect. Hollister v. For6920 SPOKLIE v. STATE OF MONTANA sythe, 918 P.2d 665, 667 (Mont. 1996); Meagher County Newlan Creek Water Dist. v. Walter, 547 P.2d 850, 852 (Mont. 1976). Under Montana preclusion law, “claims litigated in a former action as well as . . . claims which might have been litigated” are barred. Balyeat Law, P.C. v. Hatch, 942 P.2d 716, 717 (Mont. 1997). “A resolved claim will be res judicata as to subsequent claims if: (1) the parties are the same; (2) the subject matter is the same; (3) the issues are the same and relate to the same subject matter; and (4) the capacities of the persons are the same in reference to the subject matter and issues.” Id.; see also Loney v. Milodragovich, Dale & Dye, P.C., 905 P.2d 158, 161 (Mont. 1995); Troutt v. Colorado Western Ins. Co., 246 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9th Cir. 2001). [4] All four requirements are easily met here. First, the defendants in both cases are the State of Montana and DFWP. Second, the subject in both cases is I-143. Third, the issue in both cases is the legality of I-143. The Kafkas have added a federal Commerce Clause claim to this suit, but this claim arises out of the same subject and “might have been litigated” in their state court suit. Finally, the Kafkas are suing the same state defendants. The Kafkas nevertheless contend that the state trial court’s dismissal of their takings claims should not preclude their federal takings claim. They point out that the United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari in San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. San Francisco City and County, 364 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2004), in which we held that issues decided by a state court in resolving a state takings claim are preclusive in a later federal suit asserting an “equivalent” federal takings claim. The Kafkas ask that we defer decision on claim preclusion of their federal takings claim pending the Supreme Court’s decision in San Remo Hotel. [5] Whatever the Supreme Court might decide in San Remo Hotel, the case is inapposite for two reasons. First, the state court in San Remo Hotel decided only a state law takings SPOKLIE v. STATE OF MONTANA 6921 claim. In this case, by contrast, the state court decided both state and federal takings claims. Second, the question in federal court in San Remo Hotel was issue preclusion. In this case, by contrast, the question is claim preclusion. In this case, the Kafkas brought their federal takings claim directly in state court, and the state court entered a final judgment rejecting it. Cf. England v. Louisiana State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 375 U.S. 411, 415 (1964). We are precluded by Montana law from redeciding that claim. B. The Kafkas’ Federal Court Suit: No Preclusion of Claim Against Hagener [6] The Kafkas brought suit in federal district court against Jeff Hagener, the Director of DFWP, in both his individual and official capacities, asserting that I-143 violated both state and federal law. The district court denied a preliminary injunction on October 5, 2001. On November 7, 2001, the Kafkas voluntarily dismissed their complaint. It is not clear from the record before us whether this dismissal was with or without prejudice. We are therefore unable to conclude on this record that the dismissal of the district court against Hagener precludes claims against him in the case before us.