have not considered the effect of a voluntary dismissal of a compulsory counterclaim on a subsequent action based on the same claim. C.R.C.P. 13(a) is almost identical to Fed. R.Civ.P. 13(a). Where, as here, there is no controlling Colorado authority, we may look to federal precedent for guidance in construing the language of the Colorado rule. See In re Estate of Krotiuk, supra, 12 P.3d at 305. In SSMC, Inc., N.V. v. Steffen, supra, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the dismissal of a compulsory counterclaim without prejudice had the same effect as a dismissal with prejudice. In contrast, Arkansas allows a party to refile a compulsory counterclaim that was dismissed without prejudice. See, e.g., Linn v. NationsBank, 341 Ark. 57, 14 S.W.3d 500 (2000)(<HOLDING>). However, Arkansas’s procedural rules are
holding that if good cause does not exist the court has the discretion to either dismiss the action without prejudice or direct that service be effected within a specified time holding that the mere possibility of an upward departure beyond one year qualifies a kansas offense as one punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year holding that under ark r civ p 41 a defendant may voluntarily dismiss a compulsory counterclaim without prejudice and refile it within one year holding that action could not form the basis of a malicious prosecution claim where criminal information was dismissed as insufficient to support the charges without prejudice and the prosecutors did not amend or refile holding dismissal without prejudice to refile a facially sufficient motion is a nonappealable nonfinal order