Eric A. Martin v. Cash Express, Inc.

Summary

The court affirmed dismissal of the putative class action because the Martins were judicially estopped from pursuing undisclosed bankruptcy assets, while the other named plaintiffs were barred by claim or defense preclusion arising from earlier default or consent judgments. The court also held that the prior denials of summary judgment did not prevent reconsideration and declined to consider several arguments that were inadequately presented or unpreserved. Justice Lyons, concurring in the result, would distinguish claim preclusion from issue preclusion and emphasized that default judgments cannot support issue preclusion when nothing was actually litigated.