9th Circuit Court of Appeals Holds Due Process and Equal Protection Claims Against County were Barred by Res Judicata

This post was authored by Matthew Loeser. Esq.

This case arose from Contra Costa County’s enforcement of its zoning and building code in finding that the second living units on the properties of Plaintiffs Clark and Karla Fratus were unlawful. Plaintiffs overturned the administrative decision that found their properties unlawful, and then filed an action in federal court claiming violation of federal and state laws in connection with the original administrative rulings. Three days before the district court entered judgment in the first federal action, the County denied the Plaintiffs’ application for permits for their second units. The Plaintiffs brought a second action, which alleged federal law claims of First Amendment retaliation and violations of substantive due process and equal protection as well as several state law claims. The district court granted the County summary judgment with respect to the substantive due process and equal protection claims on the ground that they were barred by res judicata, because the Plaintiffs could have brought their action before the judgment was entered in the first case.

On appeal, Plaintiffs argued res judicata did not apply because their second complaint was based on different events, including the denial of a permit and a loan as well as the failure to reverse penalties on a delinquent tax bill. The court found that the County’s actions were based upon the same interpretation of the relevant code provisions and applied to the same properties. As such, the court held that the nucleus of facts was the same, and the Plaintiffs’ claims based on those facts were thus barred by res judicata.

The Plaintiffs next contended that their challenges to the County’s conduct could not have been brought in the first action because it came later than the conduct in the first action. Here, however, the Plaintiffs could have raised the County’s failure to reverse penalties, which occurred as early as June 2012, as this was several months before judgment was entered in the first case. Furthermore, the district court did not enter judgment in the first case until three days after the challenged permit denial, and the court actually held a hearing in that case two days after the denial. Accordingly, the court upheld the district court’s holding that the Plaintiffs’ federal law claims were barred by res judicata. It further held the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Fratus v County of Contra Costa, 2018 WL 3082009 (9th Cir. CA 6/22/2018)