764 F. Supp. 2d 209
D.D.C.2011Background
- This is the second suit by Debra Dorsey in the District of Columbia federal court concerning her leave status and separation from Jacobson Holman PLLC.
- Dorsey I (filed June 9, 2009) asserted four counts: profit-sharing contributions, COBRA, DC Wage Payment Act, and FMLA/DCFMLA issues; later amendments sought to add counts related to workers' compensation retaliation and disability discrimination.
- Dorsey I was continually amended; in September 2010 the court limited Counts I, III, and IV, and denied untimely additions of Counts V and VI.
- Dorsey II (filed October 4, 2010) asserts three counts: (I) failure to contribute to the profit-sharing plan, (II) failure to provide ARRA COBRA notice and subsidized information, (III) ERISA interference via a demanded resignation to obtain distribution documents.
- Defendants moved to dismiss Dorsey II as improper claim-splitting under the law.
- The court found claim-splitting occurred, but declined to impose Rule 11 sanctions and granted dismissal with prejudice as to counts not already addressed in Dorsey I, and without prejudice as to those that were.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dorsey II impermissibly splits claims already raised or could have been raised in Dorsey I. | Dorsey contends new facts justify separate action. | Dorsey II merely reasserts or restates previously known claims. | Yes; dismissal for claim splitting; counts already addressed or capable of being brought in Dorsey I. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stark v. Starr, 94 U.S. 477 (1876) (foundation of the rule against splitting claims in one action)
- NextWave Personal Commons, Inc. v. FCC, 254 F.3d 130 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (preclusion-like rationale; relitigating within same claim principle)
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (1980) (res judicata principles informing claim-splitting doctrine)
- Sensormatic Security Corp. v. Sensormatic Electronics Corp., 452 F. Supp. 2d 621 (D. Md. 2006) (explanation of the policy purpose of claim-splitting rule)
- Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66 (3d Cir. 1977) (prohibition on maintaining two suits about the same subject matter)