I; (3) they were not and did not agree to be plaintiffs in Drum-mond I; and (4) the reasons why they have filed the instant suit. 22 . The Mothers’ depositions are an admissible form of evidence under Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They are an expression of the Mothers' intent to pursue claims for their children. The deposition excerpts do not constitute hearsay or legal conclusions. The same reasoning applies to the 2003 declarations. 23 . See, e.g., Petromanagement Corp. v. Acme-Thomas Joint Venture, 835 F.2d 1329, 1335 (10th Cir.1988) (applying the transactional approach based on a common nucleus of operative facts to justify a res judicata bar of the new action); Yankton Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 533 F.3d 634, 641-43 (8th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks and citations
holding that an order stricken as addressing a premature claim is not res judicata as to the merits of the claim holding that a claim is barred by res judicata if it arises out of the same nucleus of operative facts as the prior claim holding that where no member of present plaintiff class had cause of action at time prior judgment was entered claim cannot be barred by res judicata holding that res judicata barred a claim that had been voluntarily abandoned in a previous litigation holding that the plaintiffs earlier claims of infringement by possession and its later claims of infringement by use of its source code arose from the same nucleus of operative facts and therefore the later claims were barred by res judicata