A federal judge ruled on Thursday that a second class-action lawsuit challenging the fees the IRS charged tax preparers was inappropriate due to an identical suit already ongoing.
The lawsuit was lodged by attorney Allen Buckley, who, dissatisfied with not being named class counsel in the first action, decided to proceed with a second, identical suit. The US District Court for the District of Columbia deemed this maneuver as going “rogue”.
Though the principle of claim preclusion does not apply as the initial case has not yet reached a conclusive judgment, the prohibition against claim splitting does come into effect, thus leading to the dismissal of the second lawsuit. Claim splitting is a legal principle that prevents a plaintiff from suing for a part of a single cause of action and then bringing a second lawsuit based on the remaining part.
Split class actions, such as the one spearheaded by Allen Buckley, have been a topic of concern within the legal realm. The critical issue revolves around the efficiency and effectiveness of having two duplicate lawsuits running at the same time. Legal scholars and professionals have argued that split cases tend to dilute the strength of the original claim, create confusion, and prolong the legal process unnecessarily.
This recent case is a clear reminder of the importance of remaining vigilant for any instance of parallel litigation and the potential knock-on effects such activity may have on the primary suit and the wider legal landscape.