As you learn about Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel,analyze, answer and discuss the following questions:

Question 1 - Res Judicata. Beatrice Richman built a helicopter-landing pad on her large estate. She built the pad not knowing that the town in which she lives (Happy Town) has an ordinance that prohibits private aircraft from flying.When she learns that she is not allowed to fly her expensive helicopter around town, Beatrice files a lawsuit against Happy Town.

Richman files a lawsuit in federal district court against Happy Town, alleging that the town ordinance violates her equal protection rights under the Firstand FourteenthAmendments.The district court judge dismissed the case out via summary judgment, finding that the ordinance is facially valid and that Richman failed to present any evidence to support her allegations.

Richman was not happy with the decision, so she added a second claim in the amended complaint that she filed. This second claim alleged the same facts as what was presented in the original complaint, but she added new information:

-she named a specific defendant, Public Works Commissioner Winn.Richman alleged that Winn used Winn's position to coerce two of Richman's neighbors to complain about her.Richman also alleged that Winn used Winn's position to induce a member of the community to write a disparaging editorial in the local newspaper about her.

-Richman also alleged that the Town defamed her character and discriminated against her based on her ethnicity.

Is this second claim barred by the Doctrine of Res Judicata?

Question 2 - Collateral Estoppel.

Read this Supreme Court case of U.S. v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154 (1984). Discuss the case and whether the concept of collateral estoppel is involved. If so, what did the Court say about collateral estoppel? Does it make sense to you? Why or why not? Explain your position.