Opinion ID: 1459522
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adequate Opportunity to Litigate

Text: Under Connecticut law, a party has not had an adequate opportunity to litigate a claim, and res judicata therefore does not apply, if the court in the first action would clearly not have had jurisdiction to entertain the omitted theory or ground or, having jurisdiction, would clearly have declined to exercise it as a matter of discretion. Conn. Nat'l Bank v. Rytman, 241 Conn. 24, 44, 694 A.2d 1246, 1257 (1997) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments, § 25 cmt. e (1982); internal quotation marks, emphasis and parentheses omitted). But the Connecticut courts clearly had jurisdiction to hear all the claims O'Connor brought in the federal lawsuit, including those brought under federal law. See Howlett ex rel. Howlett v. Rose, 496 U.S. 356, 367, 110 S.Ct. 2430, 110 L.Ed.2d 332 (1990) (Federal law is enforceable in state courts....). O'Connor does not argue otherwise. Neither does he argue that the Connecticut courts would have declined to exercise that jurisdiction. O'Connor contends instead that he did not have a fair and adequate opportunity to litigate all his claims in a single lawsuit, [6] Pl.'s Br. 20, because had he brought his federal claims in state court, the defendants would have removed the action to federal court, and, according to O'Connor, the state court claims would then have ultimately been remanded to state court. This might all be true, but it is beside the point. O'Connor cites no authority, nor are we aware of any, for the proposition that the specter of removal or subsequent remand, which may result in a plaintiff's state law and federal law claims being heard in different courts, deprives him or her of an adequate opportunity to litigate his or her claims. We agree with the district court that O'Connor had a fair and adequate opportunity to litigate his claims, even if they may eventually have been separated from one another, some heard in state and some in federal court.