the first case." Weddell v. Sharp, 131 Nev., Adv. Op. 28, 350 P.3d 80, 85 (2015). The record reveals that the parties to this suit were parties to Sandoval's prior suit. Sandoval concedes that there was a final judgment in the prior suit, as the district court granted summary judgment.

Sandoval also concedes that this suit arises out of the same September 15, 2011, incident as his prior suit. Sandoval could have raised these tort claims in the first suit. See Alcantara v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 130 Nev., Adv. Op. 28, 321 P.3d 912, 915 (2014) ("[A]ll claims based on the same facts and alleged wrongful conduct that were or could have been brought in the first proceeding are subject to claim preclusion." (internal quotation marks omitted)). Sandoval argues that there was no final judgment on his state law claims; however, claim preclusion does not require that each claim is "actually and necessarily litigated," only that they arose from the same facts and could have been brought initially. Five Star Capital Corp., Nev. at 1054-55, 194 P.3d at 713. Thus, we conclude that claim preclusion properly applies to Sandoval's claims and that the district court did not err. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Parraguirre

uc_al fek5 ' J. , J.

Douglas cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge Victor Sandoval Attorney General/Carson City Carson City Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0)1947A citiefo,