This week, the Court wrestles with res judicata issues stemming
from the dismissal of an Endangered Species Act suit for lack of
jurisdiction.
The Court holds that claim preclusion bars plaintiffs from
reasserting claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for
merits-based reasons.
The panel: Judges Hawkins, McKeown, and
Sanchez, with Judge Hawkins writing the opinion.
Key highlight: "When they appealed the
district court's original dismissal of their complaint rather
than amending, Friends took on the risk that we would affirm and
leave the judgment against them intact. Now they must live with the
consequences of that choice."
Background: In 2015, the Fish and Wildlife
Service issued a recovery plan for bull trout, an endangered
species. Two plaintiff groups invoked the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) and brought suit to challenge that plan. The district court
dismissed their claims for lack of jurisdiction, concluding
