CIVIL PROCEDURE
Supreme Court of Alaska (2025)
James Blair
In Roseberry v. North Slope Borough School District, 568 P.3d 338 (Alaska 2025), the Supreme Court of Alaska held that when a trial record clearly shows that a federal court would have declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a state claim that a complainant did not file, claim preclusion does not prevent a later filing in state court. (Id. at 348). A principal brought suit against her former school district employer, alleging that she had been fired for whistleblowing against the district. (Id. at 340–41). The principal initially brought a federal § 1983 claim and a state-law whistleblower claim in federal court. (Id. at 341). The federal court dismissed her § 1983 claim, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state whistleblower claim. (Id. at 342). The principal then brought suit in state court, alleging both the state whistleblower claim and three new state causes of action. (Id.). The district filed a motion to dismiss the new claims and argued that they were barred under claim preclusion, because the principal did not raise them in her federal court action. (Id.). The Supreme Court disagreed, and held that when a federal court dismisses a case before trial, and the record clearly indicates that the court wouldn’t have exercised supplemental jurisdiction over the subsequently-added state law claims, claim preclusion does not bar a complainant from filing those claims in state court. (Id. at 348).
