Ayers

I. INTRODUCTION

19 Plaintiffs move this Court to determine if certain issues decided in the previous SEC 20 litigation, 14-cv-00347-LAB-BGS (hereinafter “SEC case”), are collaterally estopped in 21 the present case. (See ECF Nos. 204; 215.) Defendant Larissa Ettore (hereinafter “Ettore”) 22 opposes Plaintiffs’ motion. (ECF No. 210.) The Court will address each parties’ 23 contentions within the body of this Order.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

25 The doctrine of issue preclusion prevents the relitigation of all “‘issues of fact or law 26 that were actually litigated and necessarily decided’ in a prior proceeding.” See Americana 27 Fabrics, Inc. v. L & L Textiles, Inc., 754 F.2d 1524, 1529 (9th Cir. 1985) (citing Segal v. 28 American Tel. & Tel. Co., 606 F.2d 842, 845 (9th Cir. 1979)). “In both the offensive and defensive use situations, the party against whom estoppel[, i.e. issue preclusion,] is asserted has litigated and lost in an earlier action.” Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 329 (1979). “The issue must have been ‘actually decided’ after a ‘full and fair opportunity’ for litigation.” Robi v. Five Platters, Inc., 838 F.2d 318,…