facts.

Rains, 674 P.2d at 168 (alteration in original) (quoting Constantini v. Trans World

Airlines, 681 F.2d 1199, 1201–02 (9th Cir. 1982)).

3 So understood, the “causes of action” are identical. The first factor is

irrelevant where, as here, a prevailing party seeks to leverage its victory in a

subsequent action (as opposed to a losing party seeking to undermine its defeat).

See Feminist Women’s Health Ctr. v. Codispoti, 63 F.3d 863, 868 (9th Cir. 1995)

(applying Washington law). The other three factors suggest uniformity.

Comparing Lewis and Kahl’s state court trial brief with their complaint in federal

court shows an overwhelming overlap of evidence, rights, and transactional

nucleus of facts.

Finally, we reject Lewis and Kahl’s argument that assorted jurisdictional

barriers precluded them from pursuing their damages claims in state court. State

courts have concurrent jurisdiction to hear 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions. Robinson v.

City of Seattle, 830 P.2d 318, 332 (Wash. 1992). Nothing about

RCW 28A.645.010, which authorized Lewis and Kahl’s challenge to the District’s

decision, precluded them from also asserting claims for damages. See, e.g., Clark

v. Cent. Kitsap Sch. Dist. No. 401, 686 P.2d 514, 515 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984)

(plaintiff in superior court had “appealed the Board’s order of dismissal” pursuant

to RCW 28A.625.010’s identical predecessor “and also sought damages for breach

of contract”). Nor did Washington’s 60-day notice-of-claim waiting period,

RCW 4.96.020(4), preclude Lewis and Kahl from asserting claims for damages.

“[S]tate notice of claim provisions are inapplicable to § 1983 actions,” Boston v.

4 Kitsap Cty., 852 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 2017), and the seven months between

filing and final judgment provided Lewis and Kahl ample opportunity to include

the state law claims, see Wash. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 15 (governing amendment and

relation back).

The federal action overlaps with the state action in the four relevant respects,

so res judicata bars the federal action. The district court acted within its discretion

in denying additional discovery, which was unrelated to the res judicata issue.

AFFIRMED.

5