Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Richard Baumgartner. Id. at *2. We stated: In the present case, the Trial Court did not hold ;that [plaintiffs’ claims were barred by res judicata. Indeed, it could not have done so because the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals did not file its opinion in State v. Cobbins [No. E2013-02726-CCA-WR-CO (Tenn. Crim. App., filed Feb. 4, 2015) ] until February 2015, quite some time after the Trial Court’s November 20Í3 disposition in the present case. Typically, res judicata is asserted as an affirmative defense. However, when a plaintiff pursues two similar lawsuits in different venues, that plaintiff runs the risk of receiving an unfavorable result in the initial case and having that result bind the other case. See Crain v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., 360 S.W.3d 374 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011) (<HOLDING>). In the present case, it is clear that from 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that where first suit is filed in response to notice of a planned lawsuit by the plaintiffs adversary that lawsuit may be dismissed (B) holding defendants ownership interest in texas company that was not party to lawsuit was not relevant to specific jurisdiction (C) holding that an injured former employees lawsuit was not barred by res judicata where he never authorized the union to represent his interest in a previous lawsuit over the same benefits (D) holding that a party may pursue what would be a compulsory counterclaim in a separate lawsuit but that party runs the risk of losing in the initial lawsuit and being bound by that result (E) holding first lawsuit and allegations in second lawsuit part of same transaction for res judicata purposes even though different theory of recovery and harm alleged in second lawsuit
Output (English): holding defendants ownership interest in texas company that was not party to lawsuit was not relevant to specific jurisdiction