Haik v. Salt Lake City Corporation
567 F. App'x 621
10th Cir.2014Background
- Haiks seek water service for Albion Basin lots; prior Haik I ruled no constitutionally protected water-right entitlement.
- Water Supply Agreement between Alta and Salt Lake City restricts extending water beyond 1976 limits without SLC consent.
- Haiks allege new facts: state-engineer change applications, adjourned permits, and Niermeyer letter denying permits.
- Plaintiffs allege SLC and Alta concealed change applications and misrepresented water availability since Haik I.
- District court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6); court found most claims precluded or implausible; Haiks appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do new facts state plausible equal-protection claims? | Haiks: new facts create distinct equal-protection claims. | Salt Lake City/Alta: precluded or fail under Twombly/Iqbal. | No plausible equal-protection claims; preclusion applies. |
| Are due-process claims barred by preclusion? | Haiks: changed facts create protected interest by state approvals. | Haik I already rejected protected interest; issue preclusion applies. | Due-process claims barred by issue preclusion. |
| Do misrepresentation claims survive? | Haiks: new disclosures show reliance on misrepresentation. | Representations remained true; no reasonable reliance shown. | Misrepresentation claims fail under Rule 12(b)(6). |
| Is civil-conspiracy claim barred by claim preclusion? | Haiks: conspiracy ongoing; new concealment facts alleged. | Conspiracy arises from Haik I; should have been raised then. | Civil-conspiracy claim precluded. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion regarding relief from judgment? | Haiks: fraud on the court due to concealment of change applications. | No grave injustice; disclosures not fraud on the court. | Relief from judgment denied; no abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for complaint sufficiency)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility required after Twombly)
- Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (U.S. 2000) (class-of-one equal protection framework)
- Hatch v. Boulder Town Council, 471 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2006) (new-claim exception to claim preclusion; independent facts)
- Beggerly v. United States, 524 U.S. 38 (U.S. 1998) (fraud on the court and grave miscarriage standards)
- Yapp v. Excel Corp., 186 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir. 1999) (transactional test for claim preclusion)
- Searle v. Milburn Irrigation Co., 133 P.3d 382 (Utah 2006) (change applications; property interests in water rights)
- County Water Sys. v. Salt Lake City, 278 P.2d 285 (Utah 1954) (permissive municipal water-supply decisions)
- Platt v. Town of Torrey, 949 P.2d 325 (Utah 1997) (nonresident service and reasonable basis for rates)
- Hyde Park Co. v. Santa Fe City Council, 226 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 2000) (protected property interest in takings analysis)