central inquiry under the statute is “whether the second action asserts a cause of action which arises out of the transaction or occurrence which was the subject matter of the first action.” See id.; La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 13:4231 cmt. (a). Here, Portimex’s claims against Zen-Noh in the Mexican litigation satisfy all of the elements for res judicata under section 13:4231. Portimex’s Mexican litigation involves the same parties and claims on the same transactions that Portimex litigated to final, valid judgments in the first action. Specifically, Portimex’s breach of contract claims in Mexico arise out of the same two contracts for the sale of sorghum that were the subject matter of the litigation in this Court. Further, Portimex has not argu erv. Corp., 421 F.2d 1313, 1318 (5th Cir.1970) (<HOLDING>). Because Portimex has not shown that its suit
holding that to the extent plaintiffs present action is based on conduct subsequent to the original action it is not barred by the prior litigation holding that a class action tolls the statute of limitations only for subsequent individual actions not for subsequent class actions holding that the public harm requirement applies to fraudulent inducement claims because the fraud claims arise from related contract claims holding that since defendant failed to timely remove the original complaint which was removable based on federal question jurisdiction defendant thereby waived its right to file a subsequent removal even though the complaint was amended to add a new federal claim where the amendment to the complaint did not change the nature of the action so as to constitute a substantially new suit since the new allegations and claims were not substantially different from those in the original complaint holding that new claims for damages could arise from actions that occurred subsequent to the judgment in the original action