The motion for summary judgment will be granted, because the final decision in the prior state court action filed by Marshall against these same defendants bars this federal action. An appropriate Order follows. Shapiro, S.J. 1. The FHA claim could have been brought in state court. See 42 U.S.C. 3613.
Defendants also assert res judicata based on the original eviction procedure.
The parties were not identical in that proceeding' Kazem was the plaintiff and Marshall was the defendant. The defendant attorney and defendant law firm in this action may not have been in privity with the plaintiff in that proceeding. This court declines to address the preclusive effect of the eviction proceeding because Marshall's state court action bars the present federal court action.