(stating that "[cllaims or causes of action are the same as those brought or that could have been brought in the first action if they arise from the same operative facts, or in other words from the same transaction"). 10 . - Gudmundson v. Del Ozone, 2010 UT 33, ¶ 30, 232 P.3d 1059 (quoting Buckner v. Kennard, 2004 UT 78, ¶ 14, 99 P.3d 842). 11 . Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 12 . Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 13 . See, e.g., Salt Lake Citizens Cong. v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 846 P.2d 1245, 1251 (Utah 1992) (noting that claim preclusion's "same basic policies, including the need for finality in administrative decisions, support application of the doctrine ... to administrative agency determinations"); see also Buckner, 2004 UT 78, ¶¶ 14, 22-30, 99 P.3d 842 (<HOLDING>). 14 . See Utah Dep't of Admin. Servs. v.
holding that res judicata and collateral estoppel apply to arbitration award holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings holding that the issue preclusion branch of res judicata does not apply to certain arbitration proceedings because such application would not promote judicial economy consistent judicial outcomes or finality holding that res judicata did not apply where a trial courts order was not a final judgment holding that res judicata applies in deportation proceedings