[brief] There exists inherent unfairness in forcing parties and courts to rerun a course previously run.  [...] and [...] arbitrated a complex dispute that spanned multiple construction projects, and multiple contracts, and yet [...] seeks, and the trial court permitted, a second arbitration to move forward as to one of those construction projects.  New Jersey’s entire controversy doctrine precludes [...]’s strategic piecemeal litigation.  [...] transferred more than a dozen construction projects to [...], in exchange for estimated profits on those projects, pursuant to a Project Transfer Agreement (“PTA”).  [...] did not fully pay on 13 of those transferred projects, and so [...] commenced arbitration against [...] (and [...] counterclaimed).  The Arbitrator awarded [...], after an 8-day trial, approximately $4 million on 12 of the 13 transferred projects—the one exception: the “Hackensack Project,” whereby the Arbitrator offset [...]’s damages ($899,051.20) with [...]’s alleged damages ($2.1 million).  But, in a last ditch attempt to avoid paying [...] the $4 million judgment, [...] commenced a second arbitration just 17 days later, seeking more damages it claims it is owed on the Hackensack Project.  [...] applied to the trial court for injunctive relief, but the trial court incorrectly denied that request.  The trial court erred in denying [...]’s application for injunctive relief under the entire controversy doctrine (“ECD”) (and/or res judicata) and allowing [...] to proceed with a second arbitration regarding the Hackensack Project.  The ECD, as codified in New Jersey Court Rule 4:30A, mandates that all claims arising from a single controversy must be resolved in one action to avoid fragmented litigation and ensure a comprehensive resolution of disputes.  [...] and [...]’s entire relationship centered on one overarching agreement (the PTA), which transferred all [...]’s projects, including the Hackensack Project, from [...] to [...].  The parties’ first arbitration subsumed and encompassed all transferred projects under the PTA—there were hours of testimony, dozens of exhibits, and extensive damages calculations submitted about all transferred projects—including the Hackensack Project.  [...] was legally obligated to include all counterclaims related to these projects in that arbitration (and it did).  The Arbitrator’s decision to offset [...]’s damages on the Hackensack Project (down to $0.00) based on [...]’s counterclaim demonstrates that the Hackensack Project was fully litigated in the first arbitration.  [...] asks the New Jersey courts to bless and condone its strategic piecemeal “gotcha” litigation tactics, whereby [...] apparently intentionally held back a secret claim related to the Hackensack Project, only to spring it after it lost the first arbitration.  To allow that claim to proceed would be to sanction litigation gamesmanship of the highest degree.  Allowing [...] to initiate additional one-off arbitrations for each of the PTA’s transferred projects (under [...]’s theory it could presumably file a dozen separate arbitrations now—one for each project) contravenes the ECD’s purpose of *avoiding piecemeal litigation* and ensuring that all related claims are adjudicated in a single proceeding.