collection action was in privity with client-creditor). Finally, CCSI is in privity with Citibank SD because CCSI represents similar interests and legal rights to the underlying debt as its corporate affiliate Citibank SD. See FWB Bank v. Richman, 354 Md. 472, 731 A.2d, 916, 930 (1999) (internal citations and quotations omitted) (“Privity in the res judicata sense generally involves a person so identified in interest with another that he represents the same legal right.”). Third, whether claims are “identical” for res judicata purposes is determined by the transactional test: do they “arise[] out of the same transaction or series of transactions”? Laurel Sand & Gravel, 519 F.3d at 162; accord Long v. Burson, 182 Md.App. 1, 957 A.2d 173, 187 n. 16 (2008); Sheahy, 284 F.Supp.2d at 281 (<HOLDING>). In other words, even if a claim or defenses
holding that the situs of debt  for purposes of the act of state doctrine  was not in dubai when the terms of the relevant promissory note provided that the note was payable in united states dollars at the place of the holders designation holding that when the basis of the earlier suit was that the plaintiff had had defaulted on a promissory note and the claim in the instant action is whether that promissory note was valid the transaction test is met holding that a promissory note is not enforceable against a party who signed the deed of trust but did not sign the promissory note inasmuch as promissory notes and deeds of trust are separate legal documents with unique purposes holding that where a promissory note had never been made payable to plaintiff or to bearer nor had it ever been indorsed to plaintiff    defendants established that plaintiff was not the owner or holder of the note holding that fraudulent collection on promissory note was reasonably related to breach of contract claim