This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In 2011, P and others opened a nightclub. MYXX was popular. Fights, noise problems, and underage drinking prompted D to declare the place a public nuisance. D sued Ps in Ohio state court, seeking an injunction to end the nuisance. Earlier that same day P filed for an injunction in a separate action in state court. P claimed that D enforced its ordinances in a racially discriminatory way and that the nuisance charge was baseless. The parties settled the consolidated actions. The parties entered into a court-approved consent decree. Ps were allowed to keep the club open for a little while longer but eventually were required to close it for good. P then filed this §1983 action in federal court. P raised due process and equal protection claims that largely tracked the factual predicates of her state court claims: insufficient evidence to brand MYXX a nuisance, procedural violations of city law, and discriminatory enforcement targeting the club's predominantly black patrons. D moved for judgment on the pleadings based on claim preclusion. The district court agreed. It held that P's constitutional claims were precluded because she could have, and should have, pursued them in the state litigation. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.