jurisdictions? Heretofore our joinder rules have been understood to apply when claims have been omitted from proceedings in another jurisdiction. See Giudice v. Drew Chem. Corp., 210 N.J.Super. 32, 509 A.2d 200 (App.Div.) (precluding, under entire controversy doctrine, claims that could have been brought in related New York proceedings), certif. granted and summarily remanded on other grounds, 104 N.J. 465, 517 A.2d 448, 449 (1986). And failure to join parties in an in-state federal court action would preclude later state court proceedings against the omitted parties. Gross v. Cohen DuFour & Assocs., 273 N.J.Super. 617, 642 A.2d 1074 (Law Div.199-3). The precedential value of Kimmins Abatement Corp. v. Conestoga-Rovers & Assocs., Inc., 253 N.J.Super. 162, 601 A.2d 256 (Law Div.1991) (<HOLDING>), is clouded by speculation concerning the
holding that the district court  did not abuse its discretion in denying his petition for reinstatement where membership in good standing in the state bar was required before attorney could be admitted to the federal bar and applicant had not been readmitted to state bar holding that  1997ee did not bar plaintiffs first amendment claims holding that claim preclusion did not bar fire insurer from bringing a second action against its coplaintiff in first action holding that exception applied where bar counsel was subject to adverse discovery order and another professional conduct board hearing panel had directed a similar order to bar counsel in another matter holding that entire controversy doctrine did not bar second lawsuit against defendant who was not party to first lawsuit in another state