Cited by

n.7 (App. 2009) (issue preclusion synonymous with collateral estoppel).

Under federal law, claim preclusion bars a subsequent claim “when the earlier suit ‘(1) involved the same ‘claim’ or cause of action as the later suit, (2) reached a final judgment on the merits, and (3) involved identical parties or privies.’” ¶ 17 (App. 2009) (quoting Mpoyo v. Litton Electro-Optical Sys., 430 F.3d 985, 987 (9th Cir. 2005)).

¶ 20 (quoting United States ex rel.

¶15 To determine whether a federal judgment has issue preclusive effect, Arizona courts “look to the controlling federal law in the circuit in which the federal judgment was entered.” ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (citations omitted).

of Maricopa, ¶ 7 (2021), and questions of law, such as the claim-preclusive effect of a prior judgment, ¶ 17 (App. 2009).

¶ 17 (App. 2009) ("We review de novo the claim preclusive effect of a prior judgment."); Maricopa-Stanfield Irr.

¶ 17 (App. 2009); Campbell v. SZL Props., Ltd., ¶ 9 (App. 2003).

¶11 “[D]ifferences in the specific legal theory pled in the subsequent suit are irrelevant so long as the claim could have been raised in the prior action.” ¶20 (Ariz. App. 2009) (quotations omitted).

Comm’n, ¶ 11 (App. 2011); ¶¶ 19–20 (App. 2009) (the relevant inquiry is whether the claims “arise out of the same nucleus of facts.”).

n.7, n.7 (App. 2009); see also Circle K Corp. v. Indus.