Clearly, the mere fact that some tangential relationship may be articulated between two claims is not sufficient to find them "logically related" for purposes of the compulsory counterclaim statute. See, e.g., Aycock, supra at 174; Oh v. Bell, 221 Ga. App. 276, 278 ( 470 S.E.2d 807) (1996); Goss Goss Development Co. v. First Union Nat. Bank of Ga., 196 Ga. App. 436, 437 (1) ( 396 S.E.2d 19) (1990); Trust Co. Bank of Northwest Ga., supra at 166; Idowu v. Lester, 176 Ga. App. 713, 714 (1) ( 337 S.E.2d 386) (1985); Medlin v. Carpenter, 174 Ga. App. 50, 51 (2) ( 329 S.E.2d 159) (1985); Walker v. Bishop, supra at 238 (2) (a); Schoen v. Home Fed. Sav. Loan Assn. of Atlanta, 167 Ga. App. 644, 645 (1) ( 307 S.E.2d 72) (1983); P J Truck Lines v. Canal Ins. Co., 148 Ga. App. 3, 4 ( 251 S.E.2d 72) (1978); Myers, supra at 360-361. In analyzing this issue, federal courts have held that a "logical relationship . . . arises (1) when the same aggregate or operative facts serve as the basis for both claims; or (2) the case facts supporting the original claim activate legal rights of the defendant that would otherwise remain dormant."

We similarly conclude that the superior court erred in granting Habif's motion to dismiss.Oh v. Bell , 221 Ga. App. 276, 470 S.E.2d 807 (1996), relied upon by Habif, is inapposite because the appellee in that case failed to assert his current claims in superior court as compulsory counterclaims in the appellant's prior magistrate court action. Id. at 278, 470 S.E.2d 807.

" The Perretts, therefore, cannot avoid the res judicata bar simply because the merits of their compulsory counterclaim were never addressed. See OCGA § 9-11-13 (a) (counterclaim is compulsory if it "arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction"); Allstate Ins. Co. v. Welch, 259 Ga.App. 71, 73 (2) ( 576 SE2d 57) (2003) ("Any claim that is logically related to another claim that is being sued on is properly the basis for a compulsory counterclaim.") (punctuation and footnote omitted); Willis v. Nat. Mtg. Co., 235 Ga.App. 544, 546 (1) ( 509 SE2d 403) (1998) (counterclaim for wrongful foreclosure of property securing a note is logically related to action for collection on the note and thus compulsory); Oh v. Bell, 221 Ga.App. 276, 278 ( 470 SE2d 807) (1996) (claim for breach of contract was compulsory counterclaim to action for payment for services under the contract). See OCGA § 9-11-13 (a).

Indeed, such claims would be compulsory counterclaims. See generally OCGA § 9-11-13; Oh v. Bell, 221 Ga. App. 276, 278 ( 470 S.E.2d 807) (1996). 3. The trial court did not err in finding that Georgia law, rather than Texas law, controls the enforceability of the covenants not to compete and not to disclose in the agreement.

"The plain language of O.C.G.A. § 15–10–45(d) provides for the filing of compulsory counterclaims for amounts exceeding the jurisdictional limits of the magistrate court and the transfer of the case to another court with jurisdiction over the case." Oh v. Bell, 221 Ga.App. 276, 470 S.E.2d 807, 809 (1996). Because Plaintiffs failed to assert their claim for malicious eviction as a compulsory counterclaim in the dispossessory action, they are barred under O.C.G.A. § 15–10–45(a) and the doctrine of res judicata from asserting the claim here.