Jeanette Carpenter v. Kenneth Thompson Builder, Inc., 186 So. 3d 820

Background

On Aug. 15, 2007 Jeanette Carpenter fell in a welcome-center parking lot and later sued MDOT and five John Does (Carpenter I).
During discovery Carpenter learned of additional potential defendants and moved to amend; a first amendment adding some defendants was allowed within the limitations period.
A second motion to amend (to add KTB, Coastal Masonry, Pro Mow Lawn Care, Capital Security) was filed but not heard before the limitations period expired; Carpenter filed a new, separate suit naming those defendants before the statute ran (Carpenter II).
The trial courts dismissed: Judge Jackson dismissed those defendants from Carpenter I because the second amended complaint was untimely; Judge Krebs dismissed Carpenter II as impermissible claim-splitting. The Court of Appeals reversed both dismissals.
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the circuit courts’ dismissals, holding Carpenter’s filing of Carpenter II constituted prohibited claim-splitting and, because a final judgment existed, was also barred by res judicata.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether filing a separate suit to preserve claims before statute expiration is permissible or constitutes claim-splitting	Carpenter: filing Carpenter II preserved her ability to sue new defendants when amendment might not be ruled on in time; not maintaining two actions against same parties because amendment was pending	Defendants: separate suit was duplicative; plaintiff attempted to sidestep procedural rules and split her cause of action	Court: Filing Carpenter II impermissibly split the claim under Mississippi law; dismissal affirmed
Whether the “identity-of-parties” element for claim-splitting was met when amendment was pending	Carpenter: identity not met because new defendants were not yet formally parties to Carpenter I when Carpenter II was filed	Defendants: identity met because the motion to add defendants made them parties for claim-splitting analysis and the two actions arose from same facts	Court: identity-of-parties satisfied; analysis looks to whether a final judgment would preclude the second suit and whether plaintiff was attempting to sidestep a procedural bar
Whether a final judgment in Carpenter I makes res judicata applicable to Carpenter II	Carpenter: dismissal of defendants in Carpenter I was procedural (Rule 9(h)) and not a merits adjudication; res judicata should not bar Carpenter II	Defendants: final dismissal with prejudice in Carpenter I precludes relitigation of same claims against same parties	Court: Final dismissal of defendants from Carpenter I precluded their participation in Carpenter II under res judicata; both dismissals affirmed
Whether equitable or practical difficulties (scheduling, counsel availability) justify exception to claim-splitting rule	Carpenter: scheduling difficulties and limited counsel availability made filing a second suit reasonable to preserve claims	Defendants: rules cannot be avoided by self-help; exceptions are not warranted absent bad faith or inability to follow rules	Court: No extraordinary circumstances; procedural noncompliance cannot justify filing duplicative suit to avoid the statute of limitations

Key Cases Cited

Wilner v. White, 929 So.2d 315 (Miss. 2006) (Mississippi precedent rejecting filing a separate complaint to add defendants as impermissible claim-splitting)
Kimball v. Louisville & Nat’l R.R. Co., 48 So. 230 (Miss. 1909) (early Mississippi authority prohibiting splitting a cause of action into separate suits)
Katz v. Gerardi, 655 F.3d 1212 (10th Cir. 2011) (dismissal for claim-splitting is reviewed for abuse of discretion and permits courts to manage docket and avoid duplicative litigation)
Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221 (7th Cir. 1993) (rejecting duplicative filing made to preserve claims after procedural defects; plaintiff’s failure to follow rules cannot justify second suit)