"Whether a factual grouping constitutes a transaction for purposes of res judicata is to be determined pragmatically, by considering whether the facts are related in time, space, origin or motivation, [and] whether they form a convenient trial unit." Id. at 398 (emphasis and alteration in original) (quoting 46 Am. Jur. 2d, Judgments 533, p. 801); see also Marketplace of Rochester Hills Parcel B, LLC v. Comerica Bank, 871 N.W.2d 710 (Mich. 2015). Michigan courts apply res judicata broadly, barring not only claims already litigated, "but also every claim arising from the same transaction that the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, could have raised but did not."
We conclude that the claims raised in the present case were not part of the same transaction as those raised in the 2017 case. In Marketplace of Rochester Hills v Comerica Bank, 309 Mich.App. 579, 589; 873 N.W.2d 332 (2015) (Marketplace I), vacated in part on other grounds by Marketplace of Rochester Hills Parcel B, LLC v Comerica Bank, 498 Mich. 934 (2015) (Marketplace II ), this Court held that res judicata did not bar a mortgagee from seeking remedies under the mortgage because a prior action by the mortgagee against guarantors of the underlying loan for breach of the guaranty contract and against the mortgagor for appointment of a receiver did not arise from the same transaction as would an action for foreclosure under the mortgage. Although both the guaranty action and a foreclosure action would rest on the fact that the mortgagor had defaulted on the mortgage, and some facts thus overlapped between two such actions, there were other facts involved in each type of action that did not overlap.
In determining whether two claims arise out of the same transaction or occurrence for purposes of MCR 2.203(A), res judicata principles should be applied. See Marketplace of Rochester Hills v. Comerica Bank, 309 Mich.App 579, 586, 873 N.W.2d 332 (2015) (construing MCR 2.203(A) using res judicata principles), vacated in part on other grounds 498 Mich. 934, 871 N.W.2d 710 (2015) ; Pierson Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Keeler Brass Co., 460 Mich. 372, 394 n. 12, 596 N.W.2d 153 (1999) ( TAYLOR, J., dissenting) (“MCR 2.203(A) requires, consistent with res judicata principles, a party to join every claim that the pleader has against the opposing party.”). As explained above, under Adam, plaintiff's claims for PIP benefits in the original action, and his later claim for UM benefits in this action, were not part of the same “transaction.”