effect in federal court as they would receive in the judgment-rendering state____ In Ohio, “ ‘[t]he doctrine of res judicata is that an existing final judgment rendered upon the merits, without fraud or collusion, by a court of competent jurisdiction, is conclusive of rights, questions and facts in issue, as to the parties and their privies, in all other actions in. the same or any other judicial tribunal of concurrent jurisdiction.’ ” ... This includes all claims which were or might have been litigated in the first lawsuit. ... Thus, under Ohio law, claim preclusion requires that the rendering court possess subject matter jurisdiction over the original claim. Stuhlreyer, 12 F.3d at 77 (citations omitted); see Grava v. Parkman Township, 73 Ohio St.3d 379, 653 N.E.2d 226, 227 (1995) (<HOLDING>). In accordance with this rule against
holding that a valid final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action holding that a security award separable from the merits of the arbitration which was rendered prior to a hearing on the merits was sufficiently final to be reviewed under the faa holding that final judgment on the merits in one action bars any further claim based on the same nucleus of facts for it is the facts surrounding the transaction or occurrence which operate to constitute the cause of action not the legal theory upon which a litigant relies  holding that in waiving a latenotiee defense insurer waived that defense as to any claim arising out of the occurrence in question holding that because a valid arbitration clause existed the parties had to arbitrate all disputes when the subject matter of the dispute has a reasonable relationship to the subject matter of the contract