9th Cir.

Amana Global Company v. County of King

July 22, 2026 ·2:21-cv-00637-MLP ·Unpublished · By Aisha Johnson

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's summary judgment in a condemnation dispute involving leasehold interests. The appellate court held that issue and claims preclusion barred the plaintiffs' due process and equal protection arguments.

Background

Plaintiffs, operating as sole proprietor Hafid Tahraoui, appealed from a summary judgment ruling in favor of King County and its officials. The underlying action arose from the County’s condemnation of the plaintiffs’ leasehold interest in a warehouse after their lease terminated in November two thousand nineteen.

The court’s reasoning

The panel reviewed the summary judgment de novo. The court affirmed because issue preclusion applied; a state court had already determined the plaintiffs were unlawful occupants without a protected property interest, which is a prerequisite for a procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, claims preclusion barred the remaining equal protection and conspiracy claims because the state court had decided similar claims on the merits involving the same parties. The court also noted the district court properly denied leave to amend the complaint as the plaintiffs were not diligent.

What it means going forward

The ruling reinforces that parties cannot relitigate issues or claims already decided in state court proceedings, even when raising federal constitutional challenges in federal court after a condemnation action.