by and between Providian and Rein, Croces, and Driscoll in compromise of the adverse proceedings filed by Providian. Rein, Croces, and Driscoll subsequently brought their § 362 and § 524(a)(2) claims against Providian in district court. Second, there is no dispute that the bankruptcy court was a court of competent jurisdiction. Rein, Croces, and Driscoll’s prior bankruptcy actions were litigated to a final judgment on the merits. Their settlement agreements, reaffirming the pre-petition debts, were approved by the respective bankruptcy courts and included as part of the final judgments issued in Rein, Croces, and Driscoll’s Chapter 7 proceedings. A judicially approved settlement agreement is considered a final judgment on the merits. In re Dominelli, 820 F.2d 313, 316-17 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); see Hoxworth v. Blinder, 74 F.3d 205, 208
holding that under federal law the dismissal of a claim as timebarred is adjudication of merits for purposes of res judicata holding that an order stricken as addressing a premature claim is not res judicata as to the merits of the claim holding claimant waived right to jury trial on claims brought against it on behalf of bankruptcy estate when it submitted its proof of claim against the estate and subjected itself to the equitable powers of the bankruptcy court holding that the settlement and dismissal of the trustees usury claim against lienholder operates as res judicata to bar appellant from raising an usury claim on behalf of the estate against the same lienholder holding that res judicata does not bar a defendant from raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel for the first time in a postcollateral proceeding if the defendant was represented by the same counsel at trial and on direct appeal or if an actual conflict of interest enjoined appellate counsel from raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal