Full Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 14, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D19-2410 Lower Tribunal No. 17-24837 ________________ Ruben A. Sebastian, Appellant, vs. The City of Miami, Appellee. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Mavel Ruiz, Judge. Law Offices of David A. Frankel, P.A., and David A. Frankel (Hollywood), for appellant. Victoria Méndez, City Attorney, and John A. Greco, Deputy City Attorney, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE, and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. “When a case involves a prior federal court judgment, Florida courts apply principles of federal claim preclusion in determining whether the Florida claim is res judicata.” Southern Coatings, Inc. v. City of Tamarac, 916 So. 2d 19, 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (citation omitted). “The law is well settled that when a fact, an issue, or a cause of action has been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, neither of the parties involved shall be allowed to call into question and relitigate the thing decided, so long as the judgment or decree stands unreversed.” AGB Oil Co. v. Crystal Expl. & Prod. Co., 406 So. 2d 1165, 1167 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (citing Gordon v. Gordon, 59 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1952); Simco Operating Corp. v. City Nat’l Bank of Miami Beach, 341 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)). Moreover, “the findings of a federal district court are binding on a state trial court under principles of collateral estoppel. The doctrine of collateral estoppel prevents identical parties from relitigating the same issues that have already been decided.” E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. v. Melvin Piedmont Nursery, 971 So. 2d 897, 898 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Affirmed. 2