Janette Dunkle v. Jennifer Dale

MEMORANDUM

Janette Dunkle appeals the district court’s dismissal of her complaint based on the preclusive effect of previous litigation in Alaska child in need of aid (“CINA”) proceedings. Reviewing de novo, Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 863 (9th Cir. 2002), we reverse and remand.

1. “[F]ederal courts generally give state court judgments the same issue preclusive effect that they would be given by the rendering court.” Id. at 866 . Under Alaska law, issue preclusion bars relitigation when four requirements are met:

Powercorp Alaska, LLC v. Alaska Energy Auth., 290 P.3d 1173, 1182 (Alaska 2012) (quoting State, Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children’s Servs., v. Doherty, 167 P.3d 64, 71 (Alaska 2007)). Here, the defendants failed to carry their burden of establishing the second and third requirements. See Smith v. Stafford, 189 P.3d 1065, 1075 (Alaska 2008) (stating that the party asserting preclusion bears the burden of pleading and proof).

2. Dunkle argues that the defendants violated her constitutional right to familial association because no exigent circumstances justified removing A.F. without prior court authorization. See Mabe v. San Bernardino County, 237…