Court’s public domain analysis largely tracks that of Veeck, Defendants’ arguments regarding collateral estoppel appear to be largely moot. The Court will nevertheless address the argument now in order to obviate any potential need for future consideration. That the Court’s legal analysis is similar to that of Veeck, however, is not the same as holding that Veeck precludes consideration of ICC’s claims here. The Court is not persuaded that collateral estoppel should apply in this case.
“The fundamental notion of the doctrine of collateral estoppel … is that an issue of law or fact actually litigated and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction in a prior action may not be relitigated in a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies.” Ali v. Mukasey, 529 F.3d 478, 489 (2d Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and emphasis omitted). Collateral estoppel may apply where “(1) the identical issue was raised in a previous proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated and decided in the previous proceeding; (3) the part[ies] had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue; and (4) the resolution of the issue was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits.” Wyly v. Weiss, 697 F.3d 131, 141 (2d Cir. 2012). “These four factors are
94
