Gonzalez v. Artspace Affordable Housing, 2:09-cv-00465

Background

The case arises on remand from the Tenth Circuit after dismissal and involves claims related to the seizure of a coffee shop and alleged civil rights violations against Artspace.
Anarchy Arts, LLC owned the coffee shop; Gonzalez and Gonzales are in privity with Anarchy Arts, and allege Artspace wrongfully seized and retained their property.
Utah state court proceedings culminated in findings that Anarchy Arts owned the seized property and that Artspace evicted Anarchy Arts, not Gonzalez or Gonzales.
A December 2013 Utah state court ruling and related findings resolved ownership and eviction, and the subsequent 2013 final order stated no further filings were necessary.
This federal action asserts conversion, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy, and §1983 claims based on the state court outcomes and alleged improper writs and executions.
The court concludes that issue and claim preclusion principles under Utah law apply to bar Gonzalez and Gonzales’ remaining federal claims due to privity with Anarchy Arts.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether state-court judgment bars the federal claims	Gonzalez & Gonzales: not barred; different claims and parties undermine preclusion	Artspace: res judicata/issue preclusion apply due to privity and identical dispositive issues	Issue preclusion applies; claims barred
Whether privity between Gonzalez/Gonzales and Anarchy Arts satisfies same-parties requirement	Privy status not adequately established to preclude disposition of new claims	Gonzalez/Gonzales acted in privity with Anarchy Arts and thus are bound	Privity established; binding for preclusion
Whether the state court's ownership and eviction determinations resolve the federal claims	State findings do not necessarily foreclose new theories in federal court	State findings dispositively determine property ownership and eviction, foreclosing related claims	Yes; state court determinations foreclose the federal theories
Whether the four federal causes of action could and should have been raised in the state court action	Facts were not clearly established in state records to determine timing	Counterclaims and timing permit raising the issues in state court	Pending detailed timing, preclusion not yet conclusive; may be barred if certain timing shown
Whether final judgment on the merits exists to support preclusion	State judgment was not final for preclusion purposes	State judgment is final and on the merits, supporting preclusion	State judgment is final and on the merits; supports preclusion

Key Cases Cited

Kans. Penn Gaming, LLC v. Collins, 656 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2011) (Twombly standard for plausibility; preclusion discussion underpins claims)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (pleading standard; plausibility requirement)
Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (U.S. Supreme Court 2008) (definition and scope of issue preclusion)
Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (U.S. Supreme Court 1980) (describes claim and issue preclusion)
Macris & Assocs. v. Neways, Inc., 16 P.3d 1214 (Utah Supreme Court 2000) (same-issues and privity in preclusion analysis)
Jensen ex rel. Jensen v. Cunningham, 250 P.3d 465 (Utah Supreme Court 2011) (four elements of issue preclusion in Utah)
Oman v. Davis Sch. Dist., 194 P.3d 956 (Utah Supreme Court 2008) (identity of dispositive issues; preclusion scope)
Sommerville v. Sommerville, 297 P.3d 665 (Utah Court of Appeals 2013) (final judgment on the merits under preclusion analysis)
Cent. Utah Water Conservancy Dist. v. King, 297 P.3d 619 (Utah Supreme Court 2013) (final, appealable order and explicit finality requirements)
Massey v. Bd. of Trustees of Ogden Area Cmty. Action Comm., Inc., 86 P.3d 120 (Utah Court of Appeals 2004) (on merits dismissal standards)
Nu-Med USA, Inc. v. 4Life Research, L.C., 2008 UT 50 (Utah Supreme Court 2008) (use of counterclaims for preclusion analysis)
3D Const. & Dev., L.L.C. v. Old Standard Life Ins. Co., 117 P.3d 1082 (Utah Court of Appeals 2005) (interpretation of full and fair litigation requirement)
Couture v. Bd. of Educ., 535 F.3d 1243 (10th Cir. 2008) (due process and property interests in claims)