With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". or could have been raised in the action. Wise v. Tucker, 399 So.2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). To apply the doctrine there must be (1) identity in the thing sued for, (2) identity of the causes of action, (3) identity of the persons and parties to the action, and (4) identity of the person for or against whom the claim is made. See Pumo v. Pumo, 405 So.2d 224, 226 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). In this case, the parties are the same, the same landlord is suing the same lessee, but the identity of the thing sued for is different: JPAY II seeks damages for a completely different set of monthly rents that had yet to accrue at the time the judgment in JPAY I was rendered. Those damages were not included in JPAY I judgment. See Gilbert v. Florida Power & Light Co., 981 So.2d 609, 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (<HOLDING>); see also Greene v. Boyette, 587 So.2d 629,

A: holding that cause of action for malpractice had accrued before underlying actions dismissal
B: recognizing the cause of action
C: recognizing cause of action
D: holding that under the rule against splitting a cause of action a new claim for damages is not barred if the underlying cause of action had not accrued at the time of filing the previous lawsuit
D.