Whether the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals erred in holding that federal claim preclusion principles bar subsequent state court claims previously dismissed without prejudice after federal court's refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, and on claims predicated on events postdating the initial complaint

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Semtek Intl Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U.S. 497 (2001), this Court reaffirmed that the claimpreclusive effect of a federal court judgment is determined by federal common law and, thus, it is a federal question reviewable by this Court. It is this ~ Court that has the last word on the claim-preclusive effect of all federal judgments and the States must accord them the effect that this Court prescribes. Id. Thus, this Court has ruled that federal claim preclusion does not bar a subsequent suit on claims predicated on events postdating the filing of the initial complaint. The First, Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits have held the same. This Court has also noted the exception to federal claim preclusion set forth in Restatement (Second) of Judgments §26(1)(c) (Am. Law. Inst. 1982) which, together with Restatement (Second) of Judgments §25, Comment e (Am. Law. Inst. 1982), dictates that when a plaintiff brings both federal and state law claims to the federal court and © prays the federal court to ‘assume supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims, but the federal court declines and dismisses the state claims without prejudice, the federal judgment would not constitute claim preclusion (the here-relevant aspect of res judicata) with respect to the state law claims in a subsequent suit. The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth and Federal Circuits as well as the Puerto Rico Supreme Court and other high courts have held the same. Claim preclusion does not bar such claims because the claims in the second case . have not been adjudicated on the merits. In the QUESTIONS PRESENTED Continued decision below, the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals, however, has now held the opposite in both instances. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals erred in holding that federal claim preclusion principles (the here-relevant aspect of res judicata) in the interjurisdictional context bar . the subsequent case in the State court on state law claims previously dismissed without prejudice after the federal court’s refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction; and on claims predicated on events postdating the filing of the earlier complaint. 2. Whether it is permissible under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clause for a State court to deprive some plaintiffs of their legitimate state-law claims and close its doors to them on grounds of federal claim preclusion in cases where it has been well settled that such doctrine does not apply.