his motion for sanctions, eventually netting the estate $80,000. Therefore, Ries’s active participation in the sanctions proceeding, on behalf of the estate, made the estate a party to the proceeding, even if it had not been explicitly named a party in the proceeding. 2. Final Judgment on the Merits by a Court of Competent Jurisdiction The parties agree that the second prong (prior judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction) and the third prong (final judgment on the merits) of the res judicata test are satisfied. Moreover, it is beyond doubt that the bankruptcy court’s March 28, 2007 Memorandum Opinion and Order constituted a final judgment on the merits because it was not appealed from. See, e.g., Royal Ins. Co. of Am. v. Quinn-L Capital Corp., 960 F.2d 1286, 1293 (5th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>); In re Williams, 298 F.3d 458, 461-62 (5th
holding that a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata holding that res judicata did not apply where a trial courts order was not a final judgment holding that an unappealed order is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes holding that a summary judgment is a determination on the merits for res judicata and collateral estoppel purposes holding that a bankruptcy courts sale order is a final order for res judicata purposes