‘litigants from the burden of relitigating an identical issue with the same party or his privy and to promote judicial economy by preventing needless litigation.’ ” Laurel Sand & Gravel, 519 F.3d at 161-62 (quoting Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 99 S.Ct. 645, 58 L.Ed.2d 552 (1979)); accord Norville, 887 A.2d at 1037. Hawkins’ claims satisfy these elements of res judicata. First, the state adjudication was a final judgment on the merits: it resulted in a judgment against Hawkins regarding the deficiency amount. Second, all parties in this action were party to the state adjudication or are in privity with the parties to that adjudication (and Hawkins does not appear to expressly contend otherwise). Hawkins was a party to both suits. See Sheahy, 284 F.Supp.2d at 280-81 (<HOLDING>). MPEB is in privity with Citibank SD. See id.
holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification holding class action to be superior adjudication method where individual class members had no interest in controlling prosecution of individual actions holding that the individual defendant does not have to be in privity of contract with the plaintiff to be held liable under  1981 holding that tolling applies to a subsequent class action when class certification was granted in a prior case holding that privity existed in a class action when lead plaintiff was the defendant in the prior adjudication