## Facts

- Kimberly Lisboa and other owners opened the MYXX nightclub in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, in 2011.
- The City received complaints tied to the club, including fights, noise, and underage drinking, and treated the club as a public nuisance.
- The City Council authorized the City Manager and Director of Law to take legal action to abate the alleged nuisance.
- After a late-night incident involving crowds and police response, the City filed an Ohio state-court action seeking an injunction to end the nuisance.
- Earlier the same day, Lisboa filed a separate Ohio state-court action seeking injunctive relief against the City and alleging, among other things, discriminatory enforcement and lack of a factual basis for the nuisance charge.
- The state cases were consolidated and resolved by a court-approved consent decree that temporarily permitted operations but ultimately required the club to close.
- Less than two months after entry of the consent decree, the owners filed a federal action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging due process and equal protection violations tied to the nuisance designation and enforcement actions.

## Issues

1. Whether Ohio claim preclusion arising from the state-court consent decree barred the owners’ later federal § 1983 due process and equal protection claims.
2. Whether the federal constitutional theories were sufficiently related to the state litigation such that they were or could have been litigated before the consent decree.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed judgment on the pleadings for the City.
- The court held that the state-court consent decree constituted a valid, final judgment for preclusion purposes.
- The court concluded the federal § 1983 claims arose from the same transaction as the state litigation and therefore were barred because they were or could have been litigated in the state proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts must give state-court judgments the same claim-preclusive effect they would receive under the forum state’s law.
- Under Ohio law, claim preclusion bars subsequent actions between the same parties (or their privies) when there is a valid, final judgment on the merits and the later claims were or could have been litigated in the prior action and arise from the same transaction or occurrence.
- A state-court consent decree may operate as a final judgment on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes.
- Claim preclusion applies to § 1983 actions when the elements of state-law preclusion are met, including when the plaintiff could have raised the § 1983 claims in the prior state case and did not reserve them.

## Conclusion

Because the state-court consent decree finally resolved the consolidated nuisance dispute between the club owners and the City, and the owners’ later § 1983 due process and equal protection theories arose from the same core events and could have been raised in state court, Ohio claim preclusion barred the federal suit and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.


Lisboa v. City of Cleveland Heights, 576 F. App’x 474 (6th Cir. 2014)