In re Cogliano, 355 B.R. 792 (9th Cir. BAP 2006)
          The denial of the debtor’s first amended claim of exemption did not preclude her assertion in her second claim of exemption that her IRA was not property of the estate. Neither issue preclusion nor claim preclusion applied, since the issue of property of the estate was not necessarily decided in the initial exemption decision. Further, the issue of property of the estate had to be decided by way of an adversary proceeding, not a contested matter.

In re George, 318 B.R. 729 (9th Cir. BAP 2004)
          Claim preclusion barred debtor from pursuing a § 525 claim in bankruptcy court that could have been pursued in prevous litigation dismissed with prejudice in federal court.

Miller v. U.S, 363 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2004)
          Res judicata did not apply to IRS claim, where the plan’s discharge provisions were found to be ambiguous.

Latman v. Burdette, 366 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 2004)
          Res judicata did not bar trustee from seeking to surcharge a debtor’s wild card exemption based on under-reporting of assets, even though the trustee could have joined this action with complaint objecting to discharge upon which he prevailed.

In re Arneson, 282 B.R. 883 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2002)
          A § 523 judgment in a prior bankruptcy case has claim preclusion effect unless and until vacated.

Stratosphere Litigation L.L.C. v. Grand Casinos, Inc., 298 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2002)
          Third party creditor was barred by res judicata from challenging bankruptcy court's confirmation of debtor's reorganization plan after party's predecessor had previously failed to object

Rein v. Providian Financial Corporation, 270 F.3d 895 (9th Cir. 2001)
          Federal doctrine of claims preclusion requires a showing that: “ 1)the parties are identical or in privity; 2)the judgment in the prior action was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; 3)the prior action was concluded to a final judgment on the merits; and 4) the same cause claim or cause of action was involved in both suits.”

In re Wolfberg, 255 B.R. 879 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2000)
          Debtor's attempt to assert a claim of homestead exemption after confirmation of a chapter 11 plan was barred by res judicata

In re DiSalvo, 219 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2000), aff’d, 37 Fed.Appx. 891 (9th Cir. 2002)
          An individual chapter 11 debtor who defended against a nondischargeability suit was barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion from advancing additional debtor-in-possession claims in the same forum.

Siegel v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, 143 F.3d 525 (9th Cir. 1998)
          Ruling allowing bankruptcy claim on note secured by deed of trust was res judicata in subsequent suit founded on theory that could possibly have supported objection to bankruptcy court claim. Claim that is deemed allowed has res judicata effect.

In re Universal Life Church, Inc., 128 F.3d 1294 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 952 (1998)
          Application of collateral estoppel test in tax context

In re Russell, 76 F.3d 242 (9th Cir. 1996)
          The court of appeals reversed a decision of the Ninth Circuit B.A.P. The court held that a state court proceeding in which a final judgment was entered with regard to entities that individuals completely controlled, collaterally estopped those individuals from litigating a civil rights action concerning identical issues, even though judgment on its face was not applied to individuals. (Reversing 166 B.R. 901 (9th B.A.P. 1994) which held that no res judicata effect as to counterclaim, where counterclaim was reserved in consent judgment).

In re Pizante, 186 B.R. 484 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1995), aff’d, 107 F.3d 878 (9th Cir. 1997)
          Default judgment rendered because of failure to respond to request for admissions does not have collateral estoppel effect, since there were issues not actually litigated

In re Ivory, 70 F.3d 73 (9th Cir. 1995)
          Res judicata precludes a collateral attack on a Ch. 13 confirmation order, even if party was not a creditor and the defect was thus jurisdictional

In re Berr, 172 B.R. 299 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1994)
          Consent judgment equals collateral estoppel only where parties so intend it

In re Bugna, 33 F.3d 1054 (9th Cir. 1994)
          State law of collateral estoppel applies in determination of fraud - 523(a)(4) action. Under this law, collateral estoppel bars relitigation when “(1) the issue decided in the prior action is identical to the issue presented in the second action, (2) there was a final judgment on the merits, and (3) the party against whom estoppel is asserted was a party...to the prior adjudication...” Garrett v. City and County of San Francisco, 818, F.2d 1515, 1520 (9th Cir. 1987)

In re Heritage Hotel Partnership, 160 B.R. 374 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1993), aff’d 59 F.3d 175 (9th Cir. 1995)
          Order of confirmation constitutes a final judgment...Eubanks v. FDIC, 977 f.2d 166, 169 (5th Cir. 1992)Generally, four elements must be present in order to establish the defense of res judicata (1) the parties were identical in the two actions (2) the prior judgment was rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction (3) there was a final judgment on the merits, and (4) the same cause of action was involved in both cases.

In re Int’l Nutronics, Inc., 3 F 3d 306 (9th Cir. 1993), WITHDRAWN and superseded by 28 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1016 (1994)
          The doctrine of res judicata bars a party from bringing a claim if a court of competent jurisdiction has rendered final judgment on the merits of the claim in a previous action involving the same parties or their privies. In re Jensen, 980 F.2d 1254, 1256 (9th Cir. 1992). Res judicata bars all grounds for recovery that could have been asserted, whether they were or not, in a prior suit between the same parties on the same cause of action Clark v. Bear Starns & Co., Inc., 966 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th Cir. 1992

Palomar Mobilehome Park Assoc, v. City of San Marcos, 989 F.2d 362 (9th Cir. 1993)

In re Heritage Hotel Partnership, 160 B.R. 374 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 1993) aff’d. 59 F.3d 175 (9th Cir. 1995)
          Res judicata - confirmation order in Chapter 11

1.  
   1. Parties identified
      
      
   2. Prior judgment rendered by court of competent jurisdiction
      
      
   3. There was a final judgment on the merits
      
      
   4. The same cause of action was involved in both cases

Nordhorn v. Ladish Co., Inc., 9 F.3d 1402 (9th Cir. 1993)
          Identity of parties - res judicata - identity of claims

          (1) in order to bar a later suit under the doctrine of res judicata, an adjudication must (1) involve the same ‘claim as the later suit, (2) have reached a final judgment on the merits, and (3) involve the same parties or their privies. Blonder-Tongue

          The Ninth Circuit determines whether or not two claims are the same for purposes of res judicata with reference to the following criteria:

          (1) whether rights or interest established in the prior judgment would be destroyed or impaired by prosecution of the second action, (2) whether substantially the same evidence is presented in the two actions; (3) whether the two suits involve infringement of the same right and (4) whether the two suits arise out of the same transactional nucleus of facts.

Western Systems, Inc. v Ulloa, 958 F.2d 864 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1050 (1993)
          Bar applies even though facts on which new cause of action based not known

Mason v. Genisco Tech. Corp., 960 F.2d 849 (9th Cir. 1992)
          Bar

Gilbert v. Ben-Asher, 900 F.2d 1407 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 865 (1990)
          Collateral estoppel and res judicata

Bates v. Union Oil Co. Of California, 944 F.2d 647 (9th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 1005 (1992)
          Offensive collateral estoppel - collateral estoppel effect of a District Court judgment vacated after settlement at appeal stage 

Eureka Fed Savings & Loan Assn. v. Amer. Cas. Co. Of Reading, Pa., 873 F.2d 229, 234 (9th Cir. 1989)
          Collateral estoppel not available to resolve issues in a subsequent case when issues actually litigated in the earlier case were different.

In re Rahm, 641 F.2d 755, 757 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 860 (1981)
          Prior judgment at most establishes a prima facie case of nondischargeability

In re Houtman, 568 F.2d 651 (9th Cir. 1978)

Matter of Lockard, 884 F.2d 1171 (9th Cir. 1989)
          Tentative ruling by state court judge as to what constitutes property of estate not collateral estoppel