Mendoza was president of a local union.  The international ATU imposed a trusteeship on that local union ousting Mendoza and the local union’s executive board members having discovered suspected financial malfeasance.  Mendoza filed an action against the ATU on his own behalf.  The ATU removed it to federal court, claiming NRLA preemption.  While the first suit was pending Mendoza filed a second suit on his own behalf and on behalf of a majority of the ousted executive board members.  This decision holds that the second suit was properly dismissed on the ground that a plaintiff cannot maintain two suits on the same claim at the same time against the same defendants.  The rule is governed by the standards for res judicata–do the suits involve the same claim and the same parties.  Here, the two suits involved the same claims as they arose from the same transactional nucleus of facts.  The other executive board members were in privity with Mendoza; thus the same parties were involved in both actions.  The executive board members’ interests were completely aligned with Mendoza’s and they had understood that his initial suit was brought in a representative capacity and not ust for his personal benefit.