The relevant factual and procedural history is set forth in full in the decision of the Appellate Court. See Girolametti v. Michael Horton Associates, Inc. , 173 Conn. App. 630, 636–46, 164 A.3d 731 (2017). We briefly summarize that history as follows.

"The rule of claim preclusion prevents reassertion of the same claim regardless of what additional or different evidence or legal theories might be advanced in support of it." Girolametti v. Michael Horton Assoc., Inc., 173 Conn. App. 630 (2017). "Under Connecticut law, a defendant in a foreclosure proceeding can only raise defenses relating to the making, validity, and enforceability of the mortgage."

David S. Hardy and Curtis L. Brown, pro hac vice, in opposition.The petition by the plaintiffs John Girolametti, Cindy Girolametti, Forty-Three South Street, LLC, and Party Depot, Inc., for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 173 Conn.App. 630, 164 A.3d 731 (2017), is granted, limited to the following issue:"Did the Appellate Court properly reverse the trial court's denial of summary judgment based on the doctrine of res judicata when it determined privity existed between the defendant subcontractors and the general contractor after the general contractor had arbitrated issues relating to the construction project with the project owner?"

Girolametti v. Michael Horton Assocs., Inc., 164 A.3d 731, 744 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017). Connecticut law also requires that the issue decided in the first action be identical to the issue to be decided in the second action. Faraday v. Blanchette, 596 F.Supp.2d 508, 515 (D. Conn. 2009) (quotation marks and citations omitted).

The doctrine, along with the doctrine of claim preclusion/res judicata, "express[es] no more than the fundamental principle that once a matter has been fully and fairly litigated, and finally decided, it comes to rest." Girolametti v. Michael Horton Assocs., Inc., 173 Conn. App. 630, 650, 164 A.3d 731, 744 (2017) (internal quotation marks omitted), aff'd, 332 Conn. 67, 208 A.3d 1223 (2019). In considering whether the doctrine of issue preclusion applies to bar disputes in diversity cases like this, "federal law incorporates the rules of preclusion applied by the State in which the rendering court sits."

Connecticut uses a "transactional test as a guide to determin[e] whether an action involves the same claim as an earlier action so as to trigger operation of the doctrine of res judicata." Girolametti v. Michael Horton Assocs., Inc., 173 Conn. App. 630, 650 (2017), aff'd, 332 Conn. 67 (2019).

See, e.g., Santorso v. Bristol Hospital, 308 Conn. 338, 346 n.7, 63 A.3d 940 (2013) ("[w]hen the decision on a motion for summary judgment … is based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the denial of that motion does constitute a final judgment for purposes of appeal" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Convalescent Center of Bloomfield, Inc. v. Dept. of Income Maintenance, 208 Conn.. 187, 194, 544 A.2d 604 (1988) ("we view the issue of collateral estoppel as ripe for immediate appellate review"); Girolametti v. Michael Horton Associates, Inc., 173 Conn. App. 630, 647-48, 164 A.3d 731 (2017) ("Although, as a general matter, this court … has jurisdiction to hear appeals [only] from final judgments, there are particular circumstances in which we may hear an appeal from an otherwise interlocutory judgment. The trial court’s denial of a motion for summary judgment raising a claim of res judicata or collateral estoppel presents such an instance."), aff’d, 332 Conn. 67, 208 A.3d 1223 (2019).

Anita C. Di Gioia, in opposition. The petition by the plaintiffs John Girolametti, Cindy Girolametti, Forty-Three South Street, LLC, and Party Depot, Inc., for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 173 Conn. App. 630, 164 A.3d 731 (2017), is granted, limited to the following issue:"Did the Appellate Court properly reverse the trial court's denial of summary judgment based on the doctrine of res judicata when it determined privity existed between the defendant subcontractors and the general contractor after the general contractor had arbitrated issues relating to the construction project with the project owner?

Seayi R. Caruthers, in opposition. The petition by the plaintiffs John Girolametti, Cindy Girolametti, Forty-Three South Street, LLC, and Party Depot, Inc., for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 173 Conn. App. 630, 164 A.3d 731 (2017), is granted, limited to the following issue:"Did the Appellate Court properly reverse the trial court's denial of summary judgment based on the doctrine of res judicata when it determined privity existed between the defendant subcontractors and the general contractor after the general contractor had arbitrated issues relating to the construction project with the project owner?

Daniel J. Krisch and Frederick E. Hedberg, in opposition. The petition by the plaintiffs John Girolametti, Jr., Cindy Girolametti, Forty-Three South Street, LLC, and Party Depot, Inc., for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 173 Conn. App. 630, 164 A.3d 731 (2017), is denied. MULLINS and KAHN, Js., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.