This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
10
8737319.1
December 3, 2025, before this bankruptcy was commenced on December 15, 2025. As a result, all
four factors of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine have been met and it applies in this case.
Moreover, the Debtor is now prevented under either the doctrine of collateral estoppel or
res judicata from re-litigating the issue of whether the Property should be sold as found to be
appropriate under the Order Approving Sale. Res judicata is intended to provide “finality and
repose: prevention of needless litigation; avoidance of duplication; reduction of unnecessary
burdens of time and expenses; elimination of conflicts, confusion and uncertainty; and basic
fairness.” First Union Nat’l Bank v. Penn Salem Marina, Inc. 190 N.J. 342, 352 (2007). The
doctrine “contemplates that when a controversy between parties is once fairly litigated and
determined it is no longer open to litigation.” Lubliner v. Bd. Of Alcoholic Beverage Control of
Paterson, 33 N.J. 428, 435 (1960). Moreover, “where the second action is no more than a
repetition of the first, the first lawsuit stands as a barrier to the second.” Eatough v. Bd. Of Med.
Exam’rs, 191 N.J. Super. 166, 173 (App. Div. 1983).
Collateral estoppel relates to the “branch of the broader law of res judicata which bars
relitigation of any issue which was actually determined in a prior action, generally between the
same parties, involving a different claim or cause of action.” Sacharow v. Sacharow, 177 N.J. 62,
75-76 (2003) (quoting Woodrick v. Jack J. Burke Real Est., Inc., 306 N.J. Super. 61, 79 (1997).
Here, it is undisputed that the Debtor was a party to the Virginia Receivership Proceeding, was
served with the motion to approve the sale of the Property and the notice of hearing on that
motion, and appeared, through counsel, at the hearing to determine whether the Order Approving
Sale would be entered. Additionally, it is clear that the Order Approving Sale addressed the
marketing efforts of the Receiver together with the purchase price, and ultimately approved of
Case 25-23251-MEH Doc 18-20 Filed 12/22/25 Entered 12/22/25 20:08:18 Desc
Memorandum of Law Page 10 of 20
ANN public copy | complete ECF 18-20 | combined source PDF 465/478
Jump to an indexed page (20 of 20)