here because Cantrell did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate. Moreover, as explained below, the state court complaint did not sufficiently allege for collateral estoppel purposes that Cantrell was a fiduciary for purposes of § 523(a)(4). Consequently, the state court default judgment could not possibly have decided, implicitly or otherwise, that Cantrell breached any fiduciary duty within the meaning of § 523(a)(4). 5 . Citing Rule 8006, the CMI Plaintiffs contend that Cantrell is barred from raising on appeal the issue of whether the default judgment is entitled to collateral estoppel effect because that issue was not identified in Cantrell’s statement of issues on appeal. We disagree. See In re Bishop, Baldwin, Rewald, Dillingham & Wong, 104 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). 6 . In their summary judgment motion, the CMI
holding that the failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waives the issue holding that failure to raise an issue in an opening brief waives that issue holding that failure to include an issue in statement of issues did not bar the appellant from raising the issue in its opening brief holding that appellant waived the issue on appeal by not raising it in its opening brief even though the lower courts decision was based on that point holding that a partys failure to raise an issue in the opening brief waived the issue even though the party raised the issue in his reply brief