Cheek v. Iron County
448 P.3d 1236
Utah2019Background
- Haylee Cheek sued multiple defendants in federal court asserting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Utah constitutional claims, naming Iron County Attorney Scott Garrett in his official capacity.
- Garrett moved to dismiss Cheek’s official-capacity claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); the federal district court dismissed those claims with prejudice as redundant of claims against Garrett’s employer.
- The federal court later dismissed Cheek’s federal claims with prejudice and state-law claims without prejudice; the dismissal as to Garrett freed him from the federal litigation.
- Cheek refiled in Utah state court, suing Garrett (again including claims tied to his role); Garrett moved to dismiss based on claim preclusion (res judicata) arising from the federal dismissal.
- The Utah district court dismissed Cheek’s state action with prejudice; the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the federal dismissal was a final judgment on the merits and preclusive. The Utah Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prior federal dismissal of official-capacity claims was a "final judgment on the merits" for claim preclusion | Cheek: the dismissal was procedural/redundancy-based (official-capacity claims redundant) and not "on the merits," so it should not have preclusive effect | Garrett: the federal dismissal was with prejudice, not for jurisdiction/venue/joinder defects, and thus presumptively on the merits under rule 41 and bars relitigation | Held: The dismissal was presumptively on the merits under rule 41; Cheek failed to rebut the presumption, so claim preclusion applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Mack v. Utah State Dep’t of Commerce, 221 P.3d 194 (Utah 2009) (dismissal under rule 12(b)(6) can constitute a final judgment on the merits)
- Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Horne, 289 P.3d 502 (Utah 2012) (look to Utah R. Civ. P. 41 to determine when dismissals are "on the merits")
- Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., 393 P.3d 285 (Utah 2017) (federal law controls the preclusive effect of federal judgments; state and federal preclusion rules are similar)
- Beaver v. Qwest, Inc., 31 P.3d 1147 (Utah 2001) (applies rule 41 in assessing whether a dismissal is on the merits)
- Scott v. Universal Sales, Inc., 356 P.3d 1172 (Utah 2015) (standard of review for dismissals on appeal)