ing party, if it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim and does not require for its adjudication the presence of third parties of whom the court cannot acquire jurisdiction. "Failure to assert a compulsory counterclaim before the related claim proceeds to judgment results in the barring of the counterclaim.” James E. McFadden, Inc. v. Bechtel Power Corp., No. 85-6945, 1986 WL 4195 at *3 (E.D.Pa. April 3, 1986). Because Equitable’s counterclaim for fraud in the inducement arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject of Krisa’s claim, Equitable’s counterclaim for fraud in the inducement would be waived if not asserted in this action. See National Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Fowler, 287 F.2d 43, 45 (2d Cir.1961) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Equitable correctly observes at page 8 of
holding that the trial court should have dismissed the employees breach of contract claim holding that lessees fraud in the inducement claim should have been pleaded as a compulsory counterclaim where lessors original claim was for breach of the lease holding that the language of the arbitration clause   any controversy or claim arising out of     was broad enough to encompass the plaintiffs claim alleging fraud in the inducement of the contract holding that a breach of settlement claim should have been brought in the court of federal claims pursuant to the tucker act holding that breach of contract claim related back to misrepresentation claim because operative facts upon which the breach of contract claim was based were contained in the misrepresentation counts of the original complaint