Prior
suit bars subsequent action
By
David Ziemer
Wisconsin Law Journal
August
9, 2006
The
doctrine of claim preclusion bars subsequent litigation, even though the plaintiffs’
legal theories in the second action differ from those in the first, the Seventh
Circuit held on Aug. 2.
The
County J/Highway 164 Project involves the expansion of an 18-mile segment of Wisconsin
State Highway 164 from two to four lanes. Construction by the Wisconsin Department
of Transportation has commenced on this project.
A
second project, known as the Ackerville Bridge Project, involves construction
of two overpass structures on Highway 164 in Washington County, at the northern
end of the expansion project.
After
a public hearing in 2000, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) concluded
that the construction would not significantly affect the environment. Construction
commenced in May 2002.
In
July 2003, Highway J Citizens Group (Citizens), filed suit against the DOT and
FHWA, alleging that approval of both projects violated the Administrative Procedure
Act (APA), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), and the Wisconsin
Environmen-tal Policy Act (WEPA). The suit alleged the two projects were improperly
segmented so that environmental damage from the Ackerville Project would not be
considered when assessing the County J/Highway 164 Project.
The
district court ruled against the Citizens, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Highway
J Citizens Group v. Mineta, 349 F.3d 938 (7th Cir. 2003)(Citizens I). The Seventh
Circuit held that the defendants sufficiently considered the environmental impact,
and concluded there was no improper segmentation of the two projects.
In
February 2005, Citizens, together with Waukesha County Environmental Action League
(WEAL), filed suit in federal court again, arguing that the approval of the Highway
164 Project and the Army Corps’ issuance of a Clean Water Act permit violates
the APA, the Clean Water Act (CWA), the NEPA, and the Federal-Aid Highway Act
(FAHA).
| What
the court held Case:
Highway J. Citizens Group v. DOT, No. 05-2667. Issue:
Does the doctrine of claim preclusion allow a challenge to a federal highway project
based on new theories, when a subsequent suit was dismissed? Holding:
No. A plaintiff cannot avoid a prior final judgment by alleging new theories of
law. |
United
States District Court Judge Lynn Adelman denied the plaintiff’s request for
an injunction enjoining further construction, holding that they could not show
reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, because their challenges were
barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion.
Although
the previous challenge focused on the Ackerville Bridge Project, the court found
that the suit also challenged the widening of Highway 164. Judge Adelman wrote,
“A claim that one project was improperly segmented from another is necessarily
a claim that the environmental review conducted for each project was inadequate
because each review failed to consider the environmental effects of the other
project.”
Because
each suit arose from the same transaction and involve nearly the same factual
allegations, the court held that claim preclusion applied, notwithstanding the
difference in legal theories.
The
plaintiffs appealed, but the Seventh Circuit affirmed in a decision by Judge Kenneth
F. Ripple.
The
three elements of claim preclusion are: an identity of the parties or their privies;
an identity of the causes of actions; and a final judgment on the merits. If the
requirements are met, suit is barred not just on the issues actually decided,
but all issues that could have been raised. Brzostowski v. Laidlaw Waste Sys.,
Inc., 49 F.3d 337, 338 (7th Cir. 1995).
The plaintiffs
did not contest that the first suit resulted in a final judgment, or that the
parties were in privity. However, they challenged whether the cause of action
is identical. The plaintiffs contended that the Highway 164 Project and the Ackerville
Bridge Project are factually distinct.
The
court agreed the projects were distinct, but nevertheless found that claim preclusion
applies, because the first lawsuit did challenge the validity of both projects.
The
court noted that the relief sought in the two cases — an EIS for the entire
project, and an injunction against widening the highway — are identical.
The
court wrote, “although the legal elements of each claim may be different,
the underlying factual transaction is identical: the preparation and finalization
of the Highway 164 EIS. As in Brzostowski, the resolution of both of the plaintiffs’
complaints are grounded in the adequacy of the environmental analysis for the
Highway 164 Project.”
Accordingly,
the court affirmed.
Click
here for Case Analysis.
David
Ziemer can be reached by email.
