analyses. See In re Scarborough, 171 F.3d 638, 641-42 (8th Cir.1999) (outlining Missouri collateral estoppel criteria). 8 . Appellants argue that their injuries are indirect by nature, because the redlining practices in the insurance industry only have a negative impact when all the insurance companies engage in them, and that foreclosing the ability to pursue this action by joining multiple, unrelated defendants in state court, as opposed to federal court (which has already prevented them from pursuing on a theory of indirect injury), impermissibly extends the impact of the Canady I decision to state courts as well as federal courts. Regardless, appellants chose to litigate their original claims in federal court, and thus they are bound by the res judicata an .3d 176 (5th Cir. 1996)
holding that denial of class certification is not a judgment for purposes of the antiinjunction act while the underlying litigation remains pending holding that difference in claims alleging the same violations over different time periods are immaterial in determining identity of issues for purposes of applying the relitigation exception to the antiinjunction act holding that putative class members are not parties to an action prior to class certification holding that third exception to antiinjunction act permits federal courts to enjoin state court relitigation of matters finally adjudicated in federal court including matters that were not raised but could have been raised in federal proceeding holding that denial of class certification in stillpending federal action lacked sufficient finality to invoke relitigation exception to antiinjunction act