have the “same claims.” At oral argument, counsel explained that the second lawsuit was filed “protectively” in the event that the motion to substitute parties was not granted. And, on appeal, Dittmer’s arguments with regard to the propriety of the res judicata ruling again relate to the district court’s alleged failure to timely rule on the motion to substitute and add parties plaintiff. Examining the record, we find that all of the parties related to Dittmer had the opportunity to, and did, litigate this same action against the bank, the FDIC, and CADC. These same entities are still litigating the remanded state law claims against Richards in state court. Therefore, we agree with the district court’s res judicata ruling. See Rutherford v. Kessel, 560 F.3d 874, 881 (8th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). III. CONCLUSION The essence of this somewhat
holding that the lender liability claims of the debtor are precluded by res judicata holding that the doctrine of res judicata barred successive lawsuits by siblings asserting the same claims because the doctrine of res judicata bars both parties and their privies from relitigating an issue already decided holding that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to defenses that could have been raised in a prior action recognizing the express reservation of the plaintiffs right to maintain a second action as an exception to the doctrine of res judicata holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings