73 F.4th 751
9th Cir.2023Background:
- In 2018 Shane Love sued Pasadena and officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due-process claim for the death of Reginald Thomas.
- In 2019 the first federal district court dismissed the case with prejudice for lack of Article III standing, reasoning Love did not allege a custodial, biological, or legal relationship to the decedent.
- Love did not successfully pursue his appeal (dismissed for failure to prosecute) and refiled a near-identical suit in California state court.
- Defendants removed the state action to federal court and the second district court dismissed, holding Love was precluded from relitigating standing by the earlier dismissal.
- The Ninth Circuit panel held that (a) the first dismissal actually decided Article III standing (and erroneous decisions can be preclusive) but (b) removal after the plaintiff refiles in state court waives a defendant’s right to assert jurisdictional issue preclusion; vacated and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prior district court’s standing ruling precludes relitigation | Love: prior ruling was erroneous and should not preclude merits consideration | Defendants: standing was actually litigated and decided, so issue preclusion bars relitigation | Court: ordinarily preclusion would apply because standing was actually litigated and decided, even if erroneous, but other considerations apply |
| Whether an erroneous Article III standing decision is preclusive | Love: error undermines preclusive effect | Defendants: final unappealed judgments are preclusive even if wrong | Court: erroneous but final unappealed judgments are given preclusive effect under precedent |
| Whether removal of a refilled state-court action waives a defendant’s right to assert jurisdictional issue preclusion | Love: removing defendants waived any standing-preclusion defense by invoking federal jurisdiction | Defendants: removal does not forfeit issue-preclusion defense | Held: removal after plaintiff refiles in state court waives jurisdictional issue preclusion in this narrow circumstance |
| Remedy on appeal | Love: seek vacatur and merits consideration | Defendants: affirm dismissal based on preclusion | Court: vacated and remanded for the district court to determine federal jurisdiction and, if raised, the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (distinguishes merits from Article III jurisdiction)
- Curlott v. Campbell, 598 F.2d 1175 (9th Cir. 1979) (final unappealed judgments are preclusive even if erroneous)
- B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 575 U.S. 138 (2015) (issue preclusion bars relitigation of previously decided issues)
- Ruiz v. Snohomish Cnty. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 824 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2016) (review judgment by its natural reading to determine what was decided)
- Janjua v. Neufeld, 933 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2019) (elements for issue preclusion)
- Lapides v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. Sys. of Ga., 535 U.S. 613 (2002) (removal can waive defenses to federal jurisdiction)
- Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) (removing defendant bears burden of establishing federal jurisdiction)
- ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605 (1989) (state courts are not constrained by Article III limits)
- Tripati v. Henman, 857 F.2d 1366 (9th Cir. 1988) (effect of refiling after federal dismissal)
- Wolfson v. Brammer, 616 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2010) (issue preclusion not available where earlier judgment is ambiguous)
- Chaudhry v. City of Los Angeles, 751 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2014) (distinguishing standing from merits in due-process sibling-companionship contexts)