Opinion ID: 6536626
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Robin's Challenges To The First Protective Order Are Barred By Res Judicata.

Text: Most of Robin's claims relate to the 2016 long-term protective order. She argues that the order was improperly granted, that it violated her due process rights, and that the court should have allowed her to present a necessity defense in opposing it. She contends that these claims remain relevant in the context of her appeal of the second long-term order because the orders were explicitly and solely based upon exactly the same conduct and [i]t necessarily follows that if the underlying conduct of Robin was an invalid basis for the first order, it was for the second as well. But whether Robin's conduct was a valid basis for the 2016 protective order has already been finally decided. She had a full opportunity to litigate that issue; the superior court affirmed the issuance of the 2016 order on appeal, and we denied discretionary review. Res judicata will bar claims when there is (1) a final judgment on the merits, (2) from a court of competent jurisdiction, (3) in a dispute between the same parties ... about the same cause of action. 9 The 2016 long-term protective order was a final judgment on the merits 10 from a court of competent jurisdiction; 11 it remained final when the superior court affirmed it and this court declined to review it. The parties - Robin as petitioner and John as respondent - are the same in both cases, and Robin raises the same issues. We conclude that res judicata bars Robin's challenges to the 2016 long-term protective order.