Tatyana Evgenievna Drevaleva v. United States, et al.

Whether, contrary to the decision of the D.C. Circuit in Ashbourne v. Hansberry, 894 F.3d 298, 302 (D.C. Cir. 2018), a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Lawlor v. National Screen Service Corp., 349 U.S. 322 (1955) remains good law insofar as it holds that, if the District Court dismissed Petitioner’s lawsuit with prejudice without fully finding both the material facts of the case and the legal standards that were applicable to these material facts of the case, and if the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court, the doctrine of Res Judicata or Claim Preclusion doesn’t apply to Petitioner’s subsequent litigation, and the Petitioner is entitled to proceed with all claims in a subsequent litigation.

Whether a definition of a “final” judgment that the U.S. Supreme Court described for the purpose for an Appeal in Parr v. United States, 351 U.S. 513 (1956) is the same for the purpose of the Res Judicata or Claim Preclusion doctrine. Deciding in Parr v. United States, 351 U.S. 513 (1956), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a Judgment is “final” only when the District Court fully evaluates both the material facts of the case and the legal arguments, so there is nothing to add.

If, after the end of the underlying litigation, the Petitioner discovered new material facts of the case and new legal arguments that were hidden