Id. at 166 (footnote omitted). In making that determination, we are guided by claim preclusion principles that we outlined in G. B. v. Morey, 229 Or App 605, 608-09, 215 P.3d 879 (2009), rev den, 347 Or 608 (2010). Specifically, in that case, we explained:
Claim preclusion applies equally to affirmative defenses. See G.B. v. Morey, 215 P.3d 879, 882 (Or. Ct. App. 2009). But under Oregon law, "claim preclusion does not apply when the plaintiff in the second case failed, as a defendant in the first case, to raise a counterclaim."
Migra v. Warren City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. , 465 U.S. 75, 81, 104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L.Ed.2d 56 (1984). In Oregon, the doctrine of claim preclusion prevents “a party who has litigated a claim against another from further litigation on that same claim on any ground or theory of relief that the party could have litigated in the first instance.” G.B. v. Morey , 229 Or.App. 605, 608, 215 P.3d 879 (2009). Relatedly, “[i]ssue preclusion arises in a subsequent proceeding when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final determination in a prior proceeding.”
In Ram Technical Services, Inc., we went on to explain that the determination of whether “entry of a judgment” in another pending action would “preclude plaintiff[ ] from asserting any claims in this case” is guided by claim-preclusion principles. Id. Those principles are aimed at preventing claim-splitting and generally “ ‘foreclose[ ] a party who has litigated a claim against another from further litigation on that same claim.’ ” Id. (quoting G.B. v. Morey , 229 Or.App. 605, 608–09, 215 P.3d 879 (2009), rev. den. , 347 Or. 608, 226 P.3d 43 (2010) (explaining that, in this context, “claim” is “defined broadly as a group of facts which entitled the plaintiff to relief”)). Thus, for purposes of ORCP 21 A(3), whether another action is pending for the “same cause” generally depends on whether claim-preclusion principles would prohibit a party, following entry of judgment in the first action, from bringing the second action.
Id. at 166 (footnote omitted). “In making that determination, we are guided by claim preclusion principles that we outlined in G.B. v. Morey, 229 Or.App. 605, 608–09, 215 P.3d 879 (2009), rev. den.,347 Or. 608 (2010). Specifically, in that case, we explained:
However, once a plaintiff has litigated a claim against a defendant, she is precluded from bringing the same claim, or claims that arise from the same "group of facts." G.B. v. Morey, 229 Or. App. 605, 608 (2009). Benafel's claims against Northwest in state and federal court arise out of the Construction, i.e., the same "group of facts," and are therefore barred by claim preclusion.
In Oregon, the doctrine of claim preclusion prevents "a party who has litigated a claim against another from further litigation on that same claim on any ground or theory of relief that the party could have litigated in the first instance." G.B. v. Morey, 229 Or. App. 605, 608 (2009). b. "Issue preclusion arises in a subsequent proceeding when an issue of ultimate fact has been determined by a valid and final determination in a prior proceeding."
In Oregon, claim preclusion prohibits "a party who has litigated a claim against another from further litigation on that same claim on any ground or theory of relief that the party could have litigated in the first instance." G.B. v. Morey, 229 Or. App. 605, 608, 215 P.3d 879, 881 (2009). Under Oregon law, as under federal law, a judgment has preclusive effect even if it is on appeal. Ron Tonkin Gran Turismo, Inc. v. Wakehouse Motors, Inc., 46 Or. App. 199, 207-08, 611 P.2d 658, 662 (1980).
Plaintiff emphasizes those proceedings address only the liability of Plaintiff and Defendant as to Turk and will not resolve the issue of Defendant's alleged liability to Plaintiff unless Plaintiff chooses to make a crossclaim in the other case, which Plaintiff asserts he is unwilling to do and which, the Court notes, Plaintiff is not compelled to do under Oregon law. See G.B. v. Morey, 229 Or. App. 605, 609 (2009) (a defendant is not required to raise claim in first proceeding). A. Simplification of the issues.
February 4, 2010. Appeal from the 229 Or App 605. Petitions for Review Denied.