D owns and operates a gas pipeline, which runs through P's ranch. P observed a leak and notified D. D notified P it intended to install monitoring wells pursuant to a claimed easement interest. P would not grant permission to enter the property. D filed an action in state court seeking injunctive relief. D obtained a TRO. Prior to answering the state court complaint, P filed an action in federal district court seeking damages for trespass, nuisance, and unjust enrichment. P filed answers in the state suit but did not assert any counterclaims. D then amended its complaint in the state suit to seek damages against P in the amount of $3,000 for interference with its easement. The state court granted partial summary judgment. Eventually, the jury found against P and awarded $1,800 damages. D filed a motion for partial summary judgment in the district court contending P's federal claims were barred by the doctrines of issue and claim preclusion. The district court granted summary judgment motion, and P appealed. P asserts the district court erroneously applied the doctrines of issue and claim preclusion.