test, the act or contract test, the Supreme Court explained that “[t]he true distinction between demands or rights of action which are single and entire, and those which are several and distinct, is, that the former immediately arise out of one and the same act or contract, and the latter out of different acts or contracts.” Id. (quot e conclusion that Count II and the counts in the district court complaint are based on the same claim. While evidence relating to how the DOJ developed its TrustedAgent alternative would support the claims asserted in the district court complaint, this evidence would not both support and establish the district court counts, which was a prerequisite for application of the evidence test. See, e.g., Stone v. United States, 64 F. 667, 670-71 (9th Cir.1894) (<HOLDING>), aff'd, 167 U.S. 178, 17 S.Ct. 778, 42 L.Ed.
holding a suit against an agency of the state is a suit against the state holding that the court had jurisdiction to hear the suit under the citizen suit provision of the caa holding that a prior suit and a subsequent suit between the same parties did not involve the same claim because the evidence necessary to sustain the subsequent suit was insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to relief in the prior suit holding that former employees lawsuit was not barred by res judicata by unions prior suit where employee was not a party to the prior suit as a former union member was not in privity with the union and never authorized the union to represent his interest in prior suit holding that prior adjudication barred a claim that arose out of the same transactions and that could have been raised in prior suit