Court Opinion

ID: 9835287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 02:17:11.569534+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:01.207981
License: Public Domain

*318■ RANDOLPH, Presiding Justice,
concurring in part and in result:
' ¶ 54. While I agree this matter should be reversed and remanded, my analysis would éohclude at a finding that the Williamses’ claims against Tucker are barred by res judicata, "for those claims were compulsory counterclaims that should have been asserted in the federal action filed by Tucker. Fed.R.Civ.P. 13(a). The purpose of Rule 13(a) is to provide complete resolution to all claims between parties that “arise[ ] out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing, party’s claim,” avoiding unnecessary litigation and expenditure of judicial, resources. , Id. See also Plant v. Blazer Fin. Servs., Inc. of Georgia, 598 F.2d 1357, 1364 (5th Cir.1979). This purpose would be frustrated if the courts did not enforce the rules concerning compulsory counterclaims as intended.
LAMAR AND BEAM, JJ., JOIN THIS OPINION.