Lipscomb v. McKoy
1:24-cv-01306
| E.D. Cal. | Nov 27, 2024Background
- Brenton Lipscomb filed four separate but similar lawsuits in the Eastern District of California on October 25, 2024, naming largely overlapping defendants associated with Edwards Air Force Base.
- All four complaints allege similar facts, causes of action, and parties, each arising from workplace disputes centered on allegations of harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and whistleblower violations.
- The main defendants in each case include Edwards Air Force Base, Frank Kendall III, Heather Wilson, plus a handful of others who are collectively named in the fourth suit (Action 1308).
- On October 30, 2024, the Court ordered Lipscomb to show cause why the cases should not be consolidated or have three dismissed as duplicative, leaving the most comprehensive (Action 1308) as the operative case.
- Lipscomb responded by requesting consolidation but did not provide substantive reasons against dismissal; he acknowledged the cases are related and stem from common facts.
- The Court recommended dismissal of the instant case (Action 1305) as duplicative, allowing Action 1308 to proceed as encompassing the full scope of the parties and claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multiple suits, same facts | Lipscomb argues for consolidation, acknowledging relatedness | Not specified; standard defense is to dismiss duplicative actions | Dismiss duplicative actions (keep broadest/most complete one) |
| Consolidation vs. dismissal | Consolidate all cases to hear all issues together | Not specifically responded to in record | Dismiss rather than consolidate, since Action 1308 subsumes all parties/issues |
| Appropriateness of maintaining several actions | Plaintiff seeks to have all parties face trial in multiple cases | No direct defense argument given | Not allowed; no right to maintain separate, duplicative actions |
| Sufficiency of pleadings in each case | Plaintiff's complaints are lengthy but substantially identical | Not argued | Actions are duplicative by parties, claims, and relief sought |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2007) (establishes standard for determining when cases are duplicative and can be dismissed)
- Walton v. Eaton Corp., 563 F.2d 66 (3d Cir. 1977) (no right to maintain two separate actions with same subject matter in the same court against the same defendant)
- Serlin v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 3 F.3d 221 (7th Cir. 1993) (defining when suits are duplicative by reference to parties, claims, and relief sought)
- The Haytian Republic, 154 U.S. 118 (1894) (true test for duplicative suits is the efficacy of first suit as res judicata regarding the second)