Opinion ID: 2590922
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Were the state law claims fully and fairly litigated?

Text: Rhoten argues next that [i]n filing this present action, plaintiff was only attempting to have the claims which were not fully and fairly litigated to final judgment in the federal action addressed by a court with jurisdiction. We take this to mean Rhoten is seeking to invoke the federal court's exception to the claim preclusion doctrine. Under this exception, preclusion may be avoided if a party did not have an opportunity to fully and fairly litigate the claim. MACTEC, 427 F.3d at 831. When determining whether a claim was fully and fairly litigated, federal courts consider the following factors: (1) whether there were significant procedural limitations in the prior proceeding; (2) whether the party had the incentive to fully litigate the issue; and (3) whether effective litigation was limited by the parties' nature or relationship. Burrell v. Armijo, 456 F.3d 1159, 1172 (10th Cir. 2006). None of these factors weigh in Rhoten's favor. We find no procedural limitations in the federal court proceedings. The state district court ruling held the federal court carefully considered all of the evidence regarding Pase's actions and inactions. The federal district court's opinion reinforces this conclusion by noting the extensive discovery conducted before the defendants filed their summary judgment motions. The parties took depositions that were submitted to the federal court in support of arguments for and against summary judgment and stipulated to the admission of several documents. It is apparent the parties fully briefed the issues. Rhoten does not claim otherwise. In addition, Rhoten filed a motion for clarification after the federal court granted summary judgment, which the court treated as a motion for reconsideration and then denied. Rhoten v. Dickson, 2006 WL 2949530, at  (D.Kan.2006) (unpublished opinion). Those decisions were appealed to the Tenth Circuit, which affirmed. Rhoten v. Pase, 2007 WL 3088226, at  (10th Cir.2007) (unpublished opinion). As to the remaining matters, Rhoten had the incentive to fully litigate the federal claim because the existing law regarding claim preclusion would have barred the same theory underlying the state law claims. Finally, there is no reason to believe the parties' relationship had any undermining effect on the federal litigation. As such, we find Rhoten's federal theories were fully and fairly litigated, and the exception recognized under federal law does not apply.