Fin. Corp., et al., 904 F.2d 1498, 1504 (11th Cir.1990); see also, Lawlor v. National Screen Service, 349 U.S. 322, 326, 75 S.Ct. 865, 99 L.Ed. 1122 (1955). Therefore, the doctrine does not apply to the Bankruptcy Court’s Dismissal Order. 5 . Res judicata, like estoppel by judgment, is sometimes used to refer to the broader concepts of judicial preclusion law. See Nevada, 463 U.S. at 129, 103 S.Ct. 2906 Wright, et al., Federal Practice & Procedure §§ 4401-03 (1999). In the case at bar, the Court refers to res judicata in its more refined state, where it is a doctrine concerned with the preclusive effect of an individual claim. See Nevada, 463 U.S. at 129-30, 103 S.Ct. 2906; Wright, supra, at § 4406. 6 . See Citibank v. Data Lease Fin. Corp., et al., 904 F.2d 1498, 1504 (11th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). 7 . The cause of action is the same, despite
holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings holding res judicata ie claim preclusion doctrine applies to consent judgments recognizing that res judicata applies to judgments approving workers compensation settlements holding that the doctrine of issue preclusion applies in removal proceedings