604 F. App'x 659
10th Cir.2015Background
- In 1994 Mark C. Haik bought lots above Alta/Snowbird and was denied building permits because required appurtenant water (400 gal/day) was lacking; Salt Lake City (SLC) refused consent to extend municipal water, blocking development.
- Haik litigated twice before: (1) Haik I — a takings claim rejected because he lacked a protectable property interest in the permits/water; (2) Haik II — due process claims rejected as issue-precluded because the key question (whether he had a protected interest in permits/water) had already been decided against him.
- In the present (third) action filed in state court, Haik alleged renewed permit applications after the State Engineer approved a diversion, denial of a plenary hearing before the Salt Lake Valley Health Department/Board, and a biased hearing officer; he asserted federal and Utah due process claims and administrative-law claims.
- The Board removed the case to federal court and the district court dismissed the complaint on the merits, reasoning the claims failed for substantially the same reasons as prior litigation.
- The Tenth Circuit reversed the merits dismissal, holding federal subject-matter jurisdiction was lacking because Haik’s federal claims were insubstantial/foreclosed by prior decisions; the panel remanded the case to state court and denied certification of state-law questions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court had jurisdiction over removed state-court action | Haik: complaint raises federal constitutional due process claims (Fourteenth Amendment) and state-law claims; removal improper — remand to state court | Board: federal jurisdiction proper because complaint asserts federal due process violations | Held: No federal jurisdiction — Haik’s federal claims are insubstantial/foreclosed by prior Tenth Circuit decisions and thus do not present a substantial federal question |
| Whether Haik has a protected property interest in building permits/water supporting due process claims | Haik: post-2011 events (State Engineer approval, favorable Utah Supreme Court water decision) create a protectable interest warranting adjudication | Board: issue already decided — Haik lacks any protectable interest; prior adjudications preclude relitigation | Held: Prior panel decisions foreclose the existence of a protected interest for due process purposes; claims are not colorable |
| Whether prior decisions preclude relitigation (issue preclusion/collateral estoppel) | Haik: current claims raise different procedural and factual contexts (hearing officer bias, denial of plenary hearing) so relitigation is inappropriate | Board: same dispositive legal question has been decided; relitigation not permitted | Held: The dispositive issue — existence of a protected property interest — was previously decided against Haik and forecloses the federal claims |
| Proper disposition when a removed case presents insubstantial federal claims | Haik: removal improper; district court should remand to state court | Board: district court can dismiss on merits | Held: Where federal claims are frivolous/foreclosed, federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction; district court must remand to state court (vacating the merits dismissal) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 (federal courts lack jurisdiction over insubstantial federal questions)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (federal courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction where federal question is wholly insubstantial)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (well-pleaded complaint must present a substantial federal claim; exceptions for frivolous/insubstantial claims)
- Firstenberg v. City of Santa Fe, 696 F.3d 1018 (party invoking federal jurisdiction bears burden; removal standards)
- Salzer v. SSM Health Care of Okla. Inc., 762 F.3d 1130 (presumption against federal jurisdiction; removal burden)
- Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., [citation="567 F. App'x 621"] (10th Cir. 2014) (prior panel held Haik’s due process claims were barred by issue preclusion)
- Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Pruitt, 669 F.3d 1159 (distinguishing standards for jurisdictional dismissal vs. merits dismissal)
- Topeka Hous. Auth. v. Johnson, 404 F.3d 1245 (when federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over removed case, court must remand)
- Maroney v. Univ. Interscholastic League, 764 F.2d 403 (claims foreclosed by prior authoritative decisions render federal question jurisdiction improper)