3 . In applying a broad definition of “transaction or occurrence,” we effectuate Trial Rule 13’s "intended purpose of avoiding multiple lawsuits between the same parties arising from the same event[s],” Bacompt Syst., 752 N.E.2d at 144 (citations omitted). 4 . See, e.g., Murray v. Mansheim, 779 N.W.2d 379, 390 (S.D.2010) (disallowing compulsory counterclaims seeking affirmative relief where limitations period had expired); Duhammel v. Star, 133 Ariz. 558, 653 P.2d 15, 16-17 (Ariz.App.1982) (affirming trial court’s dismissal of counterclaim allegations seeking affirmative relief for libel and slander where counterclaim was filed after one-year statute of limitations expired), overruled on other grounds; Pharmaresearch Corp. v. Mash, 163 N.C.App, 419, 594 S.E.2d 148, 153-54 (2004) (<HOLDING>), review denied. 5 . See, e.g., Doxey-Layton
holding that the amended complaint could not relate back to the original complaint in which all claims were barred by the statute of limitations holding defendants counterclaims barred by statute of limitations and did not relate back to date plaintiff filed action holding that the uccs fouryear statute of limitations provision which barred an action by the plaintiff did not bar a thirdparty contribution and indemnity claim holding that back pay may be awarded to the date of judgment holding that as a matter of law claim stated in amended complaint did not relate back to original complaint