849 F.3d 773
8th Cir.2017Background
- Anderson owned a 2.3-acre St. Paul lot with numerous stored items the City deemed a public nuisance; the City ordered abatement in December 2011 and hired Kamish Excavation to remove/dispose of property.
- Anderson (with Berg and Berg LLC) sued in Ramsey County state court challenging the abatement, alleging federal and state constitutional violations, trespass, conversion, etc.; the state trial court granted summary judgment to defendants; Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed; review denied.
- Plaintiffs then filed a federal suit reasserting claims arising from the 2011 abatement against the City, city officials, city councilors, and the contractor; they alleged Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations plus state claims.
- District court dismissed the federal action on claim-preclusion grounds, finding the federal claims were or could have been litigated in the earlier state proceeding and rejected plaintiffs’ argument that newly discovered post-litigation facts or a "continuing wrong" avoided preclusion.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed: it held the federal complaint attacked the taking/destruction from the 2011 abatement (same facts), the parties/privies requirement was satisfied (including privity between the City and its employees), there was a final judgment on the merits, and plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal claims based on the 2011 abatement are barred by claim preclusion | Anderson: federal claims arise from new facts discovered after state suit (fraudulent concealment and ongoing retention) and/or a continuing wrong, so they were not litigated before | Defendants: federal claims attack the same taking/destruction adjudicated in state court; new theories were not pleaded and could have been litigated earlier | Held: precluded — the federal complaint challenges the same act (2011 abatement); no new facts in complaint and continuing-wrong theory fails |
| Whether the parties/privity requirement is met for claim preclusion | Anderson: some individual officials were not parties in state court so preclusion should not bind them | Defendants: city employees and contractor are in privity with the City; interests were represented by the City in prior suit | Held: privity exists — plaintiffs and City were parties; city manager and employees are in privity with the City |
| Whether the prior state judgment is a final judgment on the merits | Anderson: (implicit) prior judgment insufficient to bar federal claims | Defendants: summary judgment in state court is a final judgment on the merits | Held: yes — summary judgment is a final judgment for res judicata purposes |
| Whether plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity to litigate | Anderson: he never had an opportunity to challenge the nuisance-abatement ordinance constitutionality in state court | Defendants: state complaint sought declaratory relief on federal and state constitutional claims; courts addressed constitutionality | Held: plaintiffs had a full and fair opportunity; no procedural barriers shown |
Key Cases Cited
- E-Shops Corp. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 678 F.3d 659 (8th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for dismissal and construing inferences for nonmovant)
- Hauschildt v. Beckingham, 686 N.W.2d 829 (Minn. 2004) (Minnesota elements of claim preclusion/res judicata)
- Mach v. Wells Concrete Prods. Co., 866 N.W.2d 921 (Minn. 2015) (claims arise when right to assert them first exists; later facts can create a distinct claim)
- Rucker v. Schmidt, 794 N.W.2d 114 (Minn. 2011) (privity requires aligned legal interests; case-specific privity analysis)
- State v. Joseph, 636 N.W.2d 322 (Minn. 2001) (what constitutes a full and fair opportunity to litigate)
- Dicken v. Ashcroft, 972 F.2d 231 (8th Cir. 1992) (summary judgment is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata)
- Hillary v. TransWorld Airlines, Inc., 123 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir. 1997) (preclusive effect of a first-forum judgment is governed by the law of that forum)