In Melissa McClain et al. vs. Canadian County et al., the Western District of Oklahoma addressed several motions, including motions to dismiss by the defendants and a motion to consolidate by the plaintiffs. Ultimately, the court granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied the motion to consolidate.
Procedural History
The case of Melissa McClain et al. versus Canadian County et al. has a complex procedural history that intersects with another case, Moss v. Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County. The Moss case, filed on December 21, 2020, in Canadian County state court, involved several of the same plaintiffs and defendants. In Moss, the plaintiffs amended their state-court pleadings twice, eventually adding the plaintiffs. This case focuses on claims related to employment at the Canadian County Children’s Justice Center (CCCJC), including decisions made by Judge Hughey and actions taken during the tenure of a facility director, Mr. Kern.
Both Moss and the current case (McClain et al.) were removed to the United States District Court. In Moss, the plaintiffs moved to extend the deadline for amending their complaint, citing recently issued Right to Sue letters from the EEOC and unexhausted claims. The court, however, determined that they could only amend their complaint with the court’s leave or written consent under Rule 15(a)(2) since they had amended the pleadings as a matter of course in state court.
Subsequently, rather than seeking leave to amend under Rule 15(a)(2) in Moss, five of the seven Moss plaintiffs initiated the current lawsuit in Canadian County state court, again involving many of the same defendants. This action was also removed to federal court and was related to the pending Moss case. The defendants moved to dismiss this action, arguing that the plaintiffs engaged in impermissible claim splitting by filing a second lawsuit rather than amending the Moss pleadings under Rule 15(a)(2).
The plaintiffs then moved to consolidate the Moss and McClain cases and to grant leave to file a consolidated amended complaint. But this motion was struck for combining multiple requests for relief in violation of Local Civil Rule 7.1(c). The plaintiffs later filed a separate motion to consolidate, which the defendants opposed. The court had to address the dismissal motions before considering the consolidation motion.
Legal Issues and Court Rulings
Claim Splitting: The court found that the federal claims in the current lawsuit were subject to dismissal under the doctrine of claim splitting. This doctrine prevents litigants from filing separate lawsuits for claims arising from the same set of facts or occurrences. Since all parties in the current case also engaged in a prior related case (Moss v. Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County), and the claims stemmed from the same employment situation at CCCJC, the court determined the elements of claim splitting were met.
The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that some of their claims were unexhausted at the time of filing the first lawsuit. The doctrine requires the plaintiffs to join all related claims in one action as they mature and can be maintained.
Consolidation: The plaintiffs’ motion to consolidate the current case with Moss was denied. The court found this request moot since the federal claims in the current case were dismissed. The court also expressed skepticism about the appropriateness of consolidation, given the plaintiffs’ previous decisions not to seek amendment under the proper procedural mechanism (Rule 15(a)(2)) and instead to file a separate action.
Dismissal and Remand: With the dismissal of the federal claims on the grounds of claim splitting, the court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. These claims were remanded to the District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma. The court emphasized that it’s the preferred practice to dismiss or remand state claims when the federal claims they supplement have been dismissed.
Conclusion
The court’s decision to grant the motions to dismiss in part was based on the principles of claim splitting and the procedural history of the case. The plaintiffs’ decision to file a separate lawsuit rather than amending the original complaint under the correct rules led to the dismissal of their federal claims.
Schrag on Law 