13 plan and did not object to the Bankruptcy Court’s modification of the automatic stay, her fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims are barred by res judicata. Def.’s Mot. ¶ 7; Def.’s Mem. at 9-10. As support for its position, CGD cites only cases that generally discuss the principal of res judicata, and not specifically the issue of whether a debtor’s causes of action that existed prior to commencement of a bankruptcy case are barred by the confir mation of a Chapter 13 plan. See Def's Mem. at 9 n. 2 (citing Stebbins v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 413 F.2d 1100, 1102 (D.C.Cir.1969) (affirming the district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss on res judicata grounds in an employment discrimination case) and Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. O’Donnell, 136 B.R. 585, 587 (D.D.C.1991) (<HOLDING>)). In response, the plaintiff points out that
holding that a bankruptcy courts sale order is a final order for res judicata purposes holding that res judicata did not apply where a trial courts order was not a final judgment holding that a bankruptcy courts judgment may be used for res judicata purposes even if the judgment concerned a nondebtor holding that an unappealed order is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes holding that an unappealed contempt order by a bankruptcy court is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes