With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". and 2005, amounted to vexatious litigation. On September 4, 2007, the trial court issued a final summary judgment in favor of the defendants, and this appeal followed. The defendants contend that the trial court’s final summary judgment should be affirmed because res judicata bars Jenkins’ arguments. We agree. The doctrine of res judicata bars re-litigation of a cause of action for claims that were raised and could have been raised in a prior action. The elements under the doctrine are: (1) identity of the things sued for; (2) identity of the cause of action; (3) identity of the parties and (4) identity of the quality in the person for or against whom the claims are made. Johnson v. Young, 964 So.2d 719, 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007); see also Topps v. State, 865 So.2d 1253, 1255 (Fla.2004) (<HOLDING>). The record clearly indicates that Jenkins’

A: holding that application of res judicata requires that a prior adjudication include a ruling on the merits
B: holding that under federal law the dismissal of a claim as timebarred is adjudication of merits for purposes of res judicata
C: holding that a dismissal on statute of limitations grounds is an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata
D: holding that an adjudication on summary judgment is an adjudication on the merits
A.