It bars litigation not only of those facts that were litigated but also those facts which might have been raised in the earlier suit. Stearns v. Ariz. Dep't of Rev., 231 Ariz. 172, 177, ¶ 25 (App. 2012). The party arguing for claim preclusion must establish (1) identity of the parties in the two suits, (2) identity of claims between the two suits, and (3) a final judgment on the merits in the first case.
¶ 18 Arnett asserts that res judicata barred the instant litigation because ADEQ's claims against him could have been pursued in the previous litigation against Yellow Cab. When a judgment on the merits in one lawsuit involves the same parties or their privies as a subsequent lawsuit, res judicata bars assertion of the same cause of action in the subsequent lawsuit. Stearns v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 231 Ariz. 172, 177, ¶ 25, 291 P.3d 369, 374 (App.2012). We review this issue de novo, see id. at ¶ 24, and, like the superior court, conclude that Arnett's argument fails because his misrepresentations regarding ownership of the UST resulted in ADEQ not pursing claims against him in the prior proceeding.
Standard of Review ¶ 11 We review issues of law, such as application of res judicata principles and statutory interpretation, de novo. Stearns v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 231 Ariz. 172, 177, ¶ 24, 291 P.3d 369, 374 (App.2012) (res judicata); Reeves v. Barlow, 227 Ariz. 38, 41, ¶ 12, 251 P.3d 417, 420 (App.2011) (statutory interpretation). “Our goal in interpreting a statute is to give effect to legislative intent.”
¶12 Under claim preclusion, a final judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving the same parties or their privies bars a second suit based on the same cause of action. Stearns v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 231 Ariz. 172, 177 ¶ 25 (App. 2012). A judgment is final for purposes of claim preclusion if the judgment is not "tentative, provisional, or contingent and represents the completion of all steps in the adjudication of the claim by the court."
It bars litigation not only of those facts that were litigated but also those facts which might have been raised in the earlier suit. Stearns v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 231 Ariz. 172, 177, ¶ 25 (App. 2012). The party arguing for claim preclusion must establish three elements:
¶12 Under claim preclusion, a judgment on the merits in a prior suit involving the same parties or their privies bars a second suit based on the same causes of action. Stearns v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue, 231 Ariz. 172, 177 ¶ 25 (App. 2012). Claim preclusion bars litigation not only of those facts that were actually litigated but also those facts which might have been raised in the earlier suit.
The same principle applies here. Although Plaintiffs are correct that every new tax year stands on its own, Stearns v. Arizona Dept. of Revenue, 231 Ariz. 172, 178 (App. 2012), that does not prevent preclusion of issues common to the two actions. As to the Plaintiffs that were parties to the earlier litigation, they had a full and fair opportunity and motive to litigate the issues, and their counsel undoubtedly did so with the same skill that they have consistently displayed before this Court.