Sandoval v. Nev. Dept. of Corrections

 the first case." Weddell v. Sharp, 131 Nev., Adv. Op. 28, 350 P.3d 80, 85
(2015). The record reveals that the parties to this suit were parties to
Sandoval's prior suit. Sandoval concedes that there was a final judgment
in the prior suit, as the district court granted summary judgment.
Sandoval also concedes that this suit arises out of the same September 15,
2011, incident as his prior suit. Sandoval could have raised these tort
claims in the first suit. See Alcantara v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 130 Nev.,
Adv. Op. 28, 321 P.3d 912, 915 (2014) ("[A]ll claims based on the same
facts and alleged wrongful conduct that were or could have been brought
in the first proceeding are subject to claim preclusion." (internal quotation
marks omitted)). Sandoval argues that there was no final judgment on his
state law claims; however, claim preclusion does not require that each
claim is "actually and necessarily litigated," only that they arose from the
same facts and could have been brought initially. Five Star Capital Corp.,
124 Nev. at 1054-55, 194 P.3d at 713. Thus, we conclude that claim
preclusion properly applies to Sandoval's claims and that the district court
did not err. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Parraguirre
uc_al fek5 ' J. , J.
Douglas
cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge
Victor Sandoval
Attorney General/Carson City
Carson City Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0)1947A citiefo,