Panel hears debate over precedent and whether prior litigation posture controls counterclaim analysis

The panel explored whether the logical-relationship analysis turns on the raw facts of earlier events or on how the earlier litigation was conducted. Meredith Sawyer cited this court's opinions and a Supreme Court decision, arguing the court should look at how the prior case was litigated and the defenses raised when deciding whether later claims are logically related. "The claims asserted in the 2018 case and the claims asserted in the 2019 case are virtually the same," Sawyer said.

Counsel for Russell pointed to distinctions in the underlying transactions and emphasized that some claims were dismissed on the merits before res judicata was applied; he argued authorities treat settlement agreements as distinct from the cases that gave rise to them in comparable fact patterns. Both sides cited Showman and Cohen (as discussed to the panel) and debated whether those precedents are distinguishable; the panel did not render a decision at argument.