federal Constitutional takings claims against Defendants but do not plead such claims at this time. However, [the Howeth parties] hereby expressly reserve the right to bring such ripened claims in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. (Emphasis added.) See Guetersloh v. State, 930 S.W.2d 284, 289-90 (Tex.App.Austin 1996, writ denied) (concluding that plaintiffs in state-court takings suits may reserve federal takings claims for later adjudication in federal court, so as to avoid res judicata’s application to federal takings claim in later federal suit, because takings plaintiffs are only involuntarily in state court in order “to ripen” federal takings claims). But see San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City & County of S.F., Cal., 545 U.S. 323, 346, 125 S.Ct. 2491, 2506, 162 L.Ed.2d 315 (2005) (<HOLDING>); Hallco Tex., Inc. v. McMullen County, 221
holding that a determination of whether the defendants actions constituted a taking under the louisiana constitution does not implicate any issues of federal law and thus does not provides a basis for a federal district court to exercise federal subject matter jurisdiction holding that collateral estoppel applies only where the antecedent judgment was a final judgment holding that the domesticrelations exception to federal diversity jurisdiction does not prevent federal courts from adjudicating a tort action when the plaintiffs do not contest the validity of the state custody decree because the tort issues  were not entangled with issues that only state courts are competent to resolve holding that collateral estoppel applies to  1983 claims holding that reservation of federal asapplied takings claims that have issues that are not distinct from antecedent state issues does not defeat application of collateral estoppel in later federal suit