Salt Lake City v. Mark C. Haik
393 P.3d 285
Utah2017Background
- Mark C. Haik owns undeveloped lots in the Albion Basin and for ~20 years has sought judicial relief forcing Salt Lake City to supply enough municipal water (≈400 gpd) to permit development.
- Haik sued in federal court in 1997 raising takings and equal-protection claims; the district court and the Tenth Circuit rejected his claims on the merits (no duty to supply water; no protected property interest in mere expectation of service).
- Haik filed a second federal suit in 2012 repeating many of the same factual allegations and adding claims (misrepresentation, fraud on the court, civil conspiracy, due process); the Tenth Circuit again dismissed many claims and held others precluded by claim/issue preclusion.
- Salt Lake City later filed a state-court quiet-title/water-right adjudication in which Haik asserted counterclaims based on the Utah Constitution and state-law water theories relying on the same operative facts litigated in federal court.
- The Utah district court dismissed Haik’s state-court counterclaims as barred by res judicata (claim preclusion); Haik appealed and the Utah Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Haik’s state-law counterclaims are barred by claim preclusion given his prior federal suits | Haik: federal courts didn’t decide or he could not have raised state constitutional claims there; this court should hear them now | City: prior federal judgments on the same operative facts preclude Haik from relitigating claims he raised or could have raised | Held: Claim preclusion applies; Haik’s counterclaims are barred because they arise from the same transaction and were or could have been litigated earlier |
| Whether federal or state preclusion rules control the preclusive effect of prior federal judgments | Haik: (implicit) Utah law should govern interpretation of state constitutional claims | City: federal law governs preclusive effect of federal judgments, with diversity cases incorporating state rules; in practice Utah and federal rules align | Held: Federal law governs preclusive effect of federal judgments, but Utah and federal rules are virtually identical here, so preclusion applies regardless |
| Whether failure to plead state-law claims in prior federal suits permits relitigation in state court | Haik: he may present state constitutional claims to the Utah Supreme Court as last-resort interpreter of state law | City: failure to raise those state claims before federal court bars them now under claim-preclusion principles | Held: Failure to plead state claims in earlier federal proceedings bars later assertion of those claims when there was no jurisdictional obstacle to raising them earlier |
| Whether counterclaim status in the state-court action changes preclusion analysis | Haik: counterclaims here differ procedurally and should be allowed | City: a final judgment for a defendant in prior proceedings bars plaintiff from later asserting the same claim even as a counterclaim | Held: Counterclaim status does not avoid claim preclusion; prior final judgments bar asserting the same claims as counterclaims |
Key Cases Cited
- Haik v. Salt Lake City Corp., [citation="567 F. App'x 621"] (10th Cir.) (prior federal adjudication of related claims and preclusion analysis)
- Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (federal law governs preclusive effect of federal judgments; diversity judgments incorporate state preclusion rules)
- Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (federal-question judgments require application of federal claim-preclusion rules)
- Yapp v. Excel Corp., 186 F.3d 1222 (10th Cir.) (transactional approach to identity of causes of action)
- Oman v. Davis Sch. Dist., 194 P.3d 956 (Utah 2008) (Utah and federal preclusion rules largely aligned)
- Mack v. Utah State Dep’t of Commerce, 221 P.3d 194 (Utah 2009) (standards for reviewing claim-preclusion under Utah law)
- Penrod v. Nu Creation Creme, Inc., 669 P.2d 873 (Utah 1983) (state claims litigated or litigable in prior federal action are precluded)