Steele’s claims are barred by res judicata. As such, the defendants’ motion to dismiss will be allowed. The third criteria for the enforcement of the doctrine of res judicata is also clearly satisfied here. Claim preclusion applies so long as a new defendant is “closely related to a defendant from the original action”. Id. at 17 (internal quotation omitted). Eight defendants were named in both Steele I and Steele III. Steele alleges that the new defendants added in Steele III are directors, managers, employees or affiliates of or acting in concert with the defendants named in Steele I. The Court finds that those affiliations constitute sufficiently close relationships to warrant the application of claim preclusion. See In re El San Juan Hotel Corp., 841 F.2d 6, 10-11 (1st Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). Steele also makes numerous allegations of
holding that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to defenses that could have been raised in a prior action holding that the doctrine of res judicata applies to deportation proceedings holding that filing an answer  does not invoke the status as a defendant in plaintiffs lawsuit holding first lawsuit and allegations in second lawsuit part of same transaction for res judicata purposes even though different theory of recovery and harm alleged in second lawsuit holding that the new defendant an alleged coperpetrator of the harms litigated in the first lawsuit could invoke the doctrine of res judicata because it had a sufficiently close relationship to the original defendant