from bringing a claim if (1) a court of competent jurisdiction (2) rendered a final judgment on the merits (3) on the same claim (4) in a prior action between the same parties or their representatives. In re Int’l Nutronics, Inc., 28 F.3d 965, 969 (9th Cir.1994). The doctrine bars all grounds for recovery that could have been asserted, regardless of whether they actually were asserted, during the prior action. Id. Defendant MTC argues that the present suit is barred by res judicata because of this Court’s final judgment in the Sierra Club/CBE litigation. See Citizens for a Better Env’t v. Wilson, No. C89-2044 TEH, Judgment (N.D.Cal. Aug. 27, 1992). The Court was a court of competent jurisdiction, thereby satisfying the first res ju-dicata requirement. CBE I, 731 F.Supp. at 1454-58 (<HOLDING>). Even though it was entered into by
holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state holding that a prior suit and a subsequent suit between the same parties did not involve the same claim because the evidence necessary to sustain the subsequent suit was insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to relief in the prior suit holding that judicial review under the apa is precluded when a remedy is available under a citizen suit provision of an environmental statute citations omitted holding in a patent case that when the plaintiff brought the suit in federal district court it submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court with respect to all the issues embraced in the suit including those pertaining to the counterclaim of the defendants holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear the suit under the citizen suit provision of the caa