Plaintiff was a developer who owned property in the Township that was subject to a state court consent judgment controlling the property’s development as a result of a prior lawsuit between Plaintiff’s predecessor and the Township. When Plaintiff did not persuade the Township to accept amendments to the consent judgment, it filed a new federal lawsuit asserting due process, equal protection, and takings claims, and breach of contract. The District Court granted a pre-discovery motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the lawsuit was a collateral attack on the prior consent judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed on alternative grounds in a published opinion clarifying that collateral attacks are subject to the rules of res judicata. It held that the Plaintiff’s new federal lawsuit was a collateral attack on the state court consent judgment that was barred by res judicata, as adjudicating the constitutional claims would require the federal court to interpret and enforce the consent judgment, which was within the jurisdiction of the state court.