Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): that it could not have asserted that the Convention governed its breach of contract claims in the original action. Nor has it asserted that a contract claim arose under the Convention after it went to judgment in the first suit. Accordingly, the two cases Por-timex relied on at the hearing to support its res judicata position do not alter the Court’s analysis. First, both cases applied federal law of preclusion, which, as the Court has noted, no longer governs the preclusive effect of the Court’s judgments in a diversity case. Second, the holdings in both cases were based on the unremarkable proposition that conduct that occurs after the judgment in the original action may gave rise to new causes of action. See Kilgoar v. Colbert County Bd. of Educ., 578 F.2d 1033, 1035 (5th Cir.1978) (<HOLDING>); Exhibitors Poster Exch., Inc. v. Nat’l Screen 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that new claims for damages could arise from actions that occurred subsequent to the judgment in the original action (B) holding that to the extent plaintiffs present action is based on conduct subsequent to the original action it is not barred by the prior litigation (C) holding that subsequent action barred by res judicata where party had full and fair opportunity to present case before zoning board (D) holding that a subsequent action was not barred because the initial court did not have jurisdiction over the claim (E) holding that res judicata did not preclude the subsequent filing of an action which was a permissive claim in a prior action
Output (English): holding that a subsequent action was not barred because the initial court did not have jurisdiction over the claim