has been a final decision on the merits respecting the McNeil plaintiffs’ claim because their state constitutional claim should have been raised in the federal proceeding pursuant to the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction. Reid v. Reid, 310 N.J.Super. 12, 23-24, 708 A.2d 74, 79-80 (App.Div.1998) (“‘[I]f a federal court in a prior action would have exercised pendent jurisdiction over related state claims that were not asserted, a final judgment on the merits by the federal court precludes raising those claims in a subsequent action in state court.”’) (quoting Watkins v. Resorts Int’l Hotel & Casino, 124 N.J. 398, 413, 591 A.2d 592, 599 (1991)); Ferger v. Local 183 of the Int’l Ass’n of Bridge, Structural and Ornamental Iron Workers, 94 N.J.Super. 554, 564, 229 A.2d 532, 538 (Ch.Div.1967) (<HOLDING>). The doctrine of pendent jurisdiction is now
holding that defendant was procedurally barred from raising issue on appeal where issue was listed as grounds in motion for new trial holding that where defendant failed to raise defense of plaintiffs fraud in federal court defendant is barred from raising that issue in state court holding that rules 12b3 and 12f along with circuit precedent barred defendant who failed to raise a suppression issue before the district court from raising the issue for the first time on appeal holding that plaintiffs failure to raise his constitutional claims in the military court system bars him from raising them in federal court holding that failure to raise issue at district court forecloses party from raising same issue on appeal