As usual you display your ignorance. It is a different suit with a different plaintiff. Therefore there is no claim or issue preclusion. Now, run and ask your “lawyer friends” what those last words mean. At least you are just ignorance. Judge Robertson is thoroughly familiar with these legal concepts and chose to ignore them in a frivolous decision.
And obviously you didn't read Judge Robertson's decision. Link.
Now, run and ask your “lawyer friends” what those last words mean.
I know what it means. Judge Robertson correctly points out that you are wrong in that.
Judge Robertson is thoroughly familiar with these legal concepts and chose to ignore them in a frivolous decision.
You mean frivolous case, don't you?