Opinion ID: 168501
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Filing date and claim-splitting

Text: 30 The district court found that plaintiffs could have and should have included in the Utah case all of their claims that arose from facts that occurred prior to the resolution of the Utah state court proceeding. See Aplt.App. at 450 (emphasis added) (To the extent[] that a few of plaintiffs' federal § 1983 claims arise from alleged facts occurring subsequent to the resolution of the state court action, such claims are not precluded under the court's claim preclusion analysis.). This finding, however, does not follow from the applicable Utah law. 31 In Macris, 16 P.3d at 1219, the defendant argued that the plaintiff's claims were barred by claim preclusion because they had not been included in a prior action, and the plaintiff knew of its claims against [defendant] before the trial in Macris I began and should therefore have amended its complaint in that action and asserted the claims now pursued in the present action. Id. (emphasis in original). The Utah Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding instead that a plaintiff need only include claims in a suit for res judicata purposes if the plaintiff was aware of the facts upon which the later claims were based at the time the first suit was filed. Id. at 1220 (emphasis added). 32 Plaintiffs filed their Utah state court action on July 12, 1999. Thus, any causes of action based on facts that occurred after that date need not have been included in the case for claim-preclusion purposes. This differs from the district court's conclusion, which would have barred any claims that arose prior to November 10, 1999, when the state court ruled in favor of plaintiffs on their claims. Although this is a difference of only four months, it is a difference required under Utah law.