filed a cross-claim against the other.”). This doctrine applies in the Ninth Circuit, as demonstrated by the following ruling: A review of the record demonstrates that although American and Nytco were parties to the Oklahoma suit, they were both defendants to the action filed by Howard and Dorothy Franz; neither American nor Nytco filed a cross-claim against the other. Accordingly, there was no adjudication of a cause of action between those parties. Res judicata, therefore, is inapplicable to the present action because there was no adjudication between the same parties on any cause of action let alone the same cause of action. American Triticale, Inc. v. Nytco Servs., Inc., 664 F.2d 1136, 1147 (9th Cir.1981); see also Davis & Cox v. Summa Corp., 751 F.2d 1507, 1518 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Benson and Harvest nevertheless believe that
holding second action barred by res judicata because plaintiff asserted identical claims and jurisdictional grounds as the first action holding that res judicata is not applicable to a claim for relief that was unavailable in the earlier action holding that res judicata did not preclude the subsequent filing of an action which was a permissive claim in a prior action holding that district court improperly applied res judicata to bar claim by former codefendant because no crossclaim was asserted in the former action holding that ohios doctrine of res judicata as a procedural bar is regularly applied by the ohio courts