Should a court dismiss a plaintiffs claim, using its inherent authority or otherwise, because they first filed a motion for leave to amend to join the defendant to a plaintiffs lawsuit against another party when claim preclusion law did not otherwise require the plaintiff to raise those claims in the first lawsuit, as the Seventh Circuit held, or is the motion for leave to amend irrelevant, as the Second and Tenth Circuits have held?

Whether a court should dismiss a plaintiff's claim based on an unsuccessful motion to amend in a prior lawsuit when claim preclusion does not require such dismissal