Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-1086_5ie6.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

12 

LUCKY BRAND DUNGAREES, INC. v. 
MARCEL FASHIONS GROUP, INC. 
Opinion of the Court 

explained  that  the  judgment  in  the  first  suit  “established 
conclusively the original validity of the securities described 
in the bill, and the liability of the town to pay them.”  Id., 
at  623.  In  other  words,  by  challenging  the  validity  of  all 
bonds  of  the  same  issue,  the  defense  in  the  second  suit 
would have threatened the validity of the judgment in the 
first suit.  The same cannot be said of the defense raised in 
the 2011 Action vis-à-vis the judgment in the 2005 Action. 

* 

* 

* 
At bottom, Marcel’s 2011 Action challenged different con-
duct—and  raised  different  claims—from  the  2005  Action. 
Under those circumstances, Marcel cannot preclude Lucky 
Brand from raising new defenses.  The judgment of the Sec-
ond Circuit is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded 
for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.