Issues Deutsch had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issues in the Minnesota Action. He responded to the Plaintiffs’ complaint, and there is no evidence that he was denied an opportunity to fully litigate the case. Indeed, Deutsch’s failure to meaningfully participate in the Minnesota Action was a result of his own intentional thwarting of the discovery efforts by the Plaintiffs: he refused to provide documents to the Plaintiffs, failed to attend his deposition and failed to comply with several discovery orders. (Minn Declaration, Ex. C (State Court Findings) at 18-19.) Under Minnesota law,-a. default judgment is “a final determination of the facts essential to its existence,” even if the defendant did not interpose a defense in the action. See, e.g., Brandi, 179 B.R. at 626 (<HOLDING>). Deutsch should not be permitted to avoid the
holding that party to a default judgment had full and fair opportunity to be heard on the adjudicated issue even though the party did not put forth a defense because it did not timely serve an answer to the complaint holding that the plaintiff did not establish a waiver where the defendants answer had put the plaintiff on notice of an arbitration defense holding on summary judgment that an attorney who failed to timely file an answer leading to a default judgment was on notice that a malpractice claim might be filed against him holding that a party against whom a motion for summary judgment is filed is entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard holding that the concept of collateral estoppel cannot apply when the party against whom the earlier decision is asserted did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate that issue in the earlier case