Samaha v. The City of Minneapolis
U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota
Samaha v. The City of Minneapolis
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jamal Samaha et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-1715 (KMM/DTS)
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER
City of Minneapolis et al.,
Defendants.
This matter came before the Court on Defendant Robert Kroll’s Motion to
Dismiss. [ECF No. 85]. Mr. Kroll argues that the Amended Complaint fails to state a
claim on which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Kroll’s motion should be
denied pursuant to the doctrine of issue preclusion, because his motion to dismiss in a
now-consolidated case—Armstrong v. City of Minneapolis, No. 21-cv-1645 (KMM/DTS)—
was denied by the district judge formerly assigned to these cases. Following oral
argument, the Court denied the Motion from the bench. [ECF No. 104]. The Court fully
stated its reasoning on the record and now issues this Order to capture that ruling.
Issue preclusion is a doctrine providing that, when an issue “has been
determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between
the same parties in another lawsuit.” Anderson v. Genuine Parts Co., Inc., 128 F.3d 1267,
1273 (8th Cir. 1997). In the Eighth Circuit, the doctrine applies if five elements are met:
(1) the party sought to be precluded in the second suit must have been a
party, or in privity with a party, to the original lawsuit; (2) the issue sought
to be precluded must be the same as the issue involved in the prior action;
(3) the issue sought to be precluded must have been actually litigated in the
prior action; (4) the issue sought to be precluded must have been
determined by a valid and final judgment; and (5) the determination in the
prior action must have been essential to the prior judgment.
Id.
Mr. Kroll argued only that the fourth element—that the issue must have been
determined by a valid and final judgment—has not been met here. He contended that
denial of a motion to dismiss is not a final judgment, and that the denial of his motion
to dismiss in Armstrong v. City of Minneapolis was not valid because the court did not
address certain authority he cited. The Court found that the caselaw Mr. Kroll cites in
support of his position was neither relevant nor binding.1 Further, the Court concluded
that Eighth Circuit caselaw on point establishes that a ruling on a motion to dismiss can
preclude a subsequent motion to dismiss where the other issue-preclusion elements are
met, and that the asserted legal soundness of the prior ruling has no bearing on its
preclusive effect.2 E.g., Robinette v. Jones, 476 F.3d 585(8th Cir. 2007) (affirming district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss on the basis of issue preclusion because a court had 1 The cases cited by Mr. Kroll were from other jurisdictions and discuss the finality of orders on motions to dismiss in other contexts, such as for purposes of interlocutory appeal. None even considered the question of issue preclusion. 2 The Court stressed at the hearing, and does so again here, that it offers no opinion on the soundness of the prior ruling or the court’s reasoning therefor. Indeed, the Court expressly declined to consider the merits of Mr. Kroll’s current or prior motions. previously granted a motion to dismiss on the same claims between the same parties); Clark v. Clark,984 F.2d 272, 273
(8th Cir. 1993) (“The doctrines of claim and issue
preclusion prevent relitigation of wrong decisions just as much as right ones.
Otherwise, the doctrines would have no effect and be useless.”). Finally, the Court
found that the remaining four elements of issue preclusion were met, and Mr. Kroll did
not argue otherwise.
For these reasons and those stated on the record, Mr. Kroll’s Motion to Dismiss
[ECF No. 84] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: July 1, 2022 s/ Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States District Judge Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jamal Samaha et al., Case No. 0:20-cv-1715 (KMM/DTS)
Plaintiffs,
v.
ORDER
City of Minneapolis et al.,
Defendants.
This matter came before the Court on Defendant Robert Kroll’s Motion to
Dismiss. [ECF No. 85]. Mr. Kroll argues that the Amended Complaint fails to state a
claim on which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs argue that Mr. Kroll’s motion should be
denied pursuant to the doctrine of issue preclusion, because his motion to dismiss in a
now-consolidated case—Armstrong v. City of Minneapolis, No. 21-cv-1645 (KMM/DTS)—
was denied by the district judge formerly assigned to these cases. Following oral
argument, the Court denied the Motion from the bench. [ECF No. 104]. The Court fully
stated its reasoning on the record and now issues this Order to capture that ruling.
Issue preclusion is a doctrine providing that, when an issue “has been
determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue cannot again be litigated between
the same parties in another lawsuit.” Anderson v. Genuine Parts Co., Inc., 128 F.3d 1267,
1273 (8th Cir. 1997). In the Eighth Circuit, the doctrine applies if five elements are met:
(1) the party sought to be precluded in the second suit must have been a
party, or in privity with a party, to the original lawsuit; (2) the issue sought
to be precluded must be the same as the issue involved in the prior action;
(3) the issue sought to be precluded must have been actually litigated in the
prior action; (4) the issue sought to be precluded must have been
determined by a valid and final judgment; and (5) the determination in the
prior action must have been essential to the prior judgment.
Id.
Mr. Kroll argued only that the fourth element—that the issue must have been
determined by a valid and final judgment—has not been met here. He contended that
denial of a motion to dismiss is not a final judgment, and that the denial of his motion
to dismiss in Armstrong v. City of Minneapolis was not valid because the court did not
address certain authority he cited. The Court found that the caselaw Mr. Kroll cites in
support of his position was neither relevant nor binding.1 Further, the Court concluded
that Eighth Circuit caselaw on point establishes that a ruling on a motion to dismiss can
preclude a subsequent motion to dismiss where the other issue-preclusion elements are
met, and that the asserted legal soundness of the prior ruling has no bearing on its
preclusive effect.2 E.g., Robinette v. Jones, 476 F.3d 585(8th Cir. 2007) (affirming district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss on the basis of issue preclusion because a court had 1 The cases cited by Mr. Kroll were from other jurisdictions and discuss the finality of orders on motions to dismiss in other contexts, such as for purposes of interlocutory appeal. None even considered the question of issue preclusion. 2 The Court stressed at the hearing, and does so again here, that it offers no opinion on the soundness of the prior ruling or the court’s reasoning therefor. Indeed, the Court expressly declined to consider the merits of Mr. Kroll’s current or prior motions. previously granted a motion to dismiss on the same claims between the same parties); Clark v. Clark,984 F.2d 272, 273
(8th Cir. 1993) (“The doctrines of claim and issue
preclusion prevent relitigation of wrong decisions just as much as right ones.
Otherwise, the doctrines would have no effect and be useless.”). Finally, the Court
found that the remaining four elements of issue preclusion were met, and Mr. Kroll did
not argue otherwise.
For these reasons and those stated on the record, Mr. Kroll’s Motion to Dismiss
[ECF No. 84] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: July 1, 2022 s/ Katherine Menendez
Katherine Menendez
United States District Judge Reference
- Status
- Unknown