Th e first a ction was filed b y five plaintiffs, one of wh om volun tarily dismissedhis claims against 1 RK E Truckin g and d id n ot joinin th is case
.

NOT RE CO M M E NDE D F OR P UB L I CA T I ON

Fi l e N ame: 06a0710n. 06 Fi l ed: Sept ember 29, 2006 N o. 05- 4428 UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S IX T H C IR C U IT
W IL L IA M T W A D D L E , e t a l., P l ai nti ffs-A pp el l ants , v. E D W A R D D IE M , e t a l., D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. O n A ppeal fr om t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he S o u th e rn D istric t o f

O h io

/
B efore: G U Y , G IL M A N , an d R O G E R S , C i rcu i t Jud ges. R A L P H B . G U Y , JR . , C i rcui t Judge. P lai n ti ff s ap p ea l f

rom the d istri ct co u rt ’s
or der( 1) gr ant i ng t he mot i on of defe ndant s E dw ar d D i em and Ja m es K i bl er , s uper vi s or s at R K E T ru c k in g C o m p a n y, to d ism iss th e c o m p lain t; an d (2 ) d e n y in g p lain tiff s’ m o tio n to
con sol i date this case w i t h the pen ding act i on t hat these plai nti ffs previ ou sl yfi l ed ag ai nst R K E T ru c k in g . T h e tw o c a se s f iled b yth e se p lain tiff

s, w h ich w e w ill c a ll T

w a dd le I and 1 T w a dd le II

f o r e a se o f

re f e re n c e , as se rte d th e sa m e c a u se s o f a c tio n a g a in st di

f f er ent d ef en d an ts t o rec o v er f

o r th e sa m e f

ail u re to p ay reg u lar a n d /or o v erti m e w ag es. T h e h ea rtNo. 05-4428 2

Pl a i nt i f f s o b je c t e d t o c o ns i de r at i o n o f the p r e tr i a l o r de r

e nt e r e d i n Tw ad

dle I , b ut it is a matter of 2 record that we may take notice o f, andthe order was add ed by supplement to the record inthis case. of the d i s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on w as t he conc l us i on t hatt hi s cas e w as fi l ed i n an i m pr oper at t empt t o m ake an “end run” ar ound t he expi r ed deadl i ne for fi l i ng a m ot i on t o j oi n par t i es
oramend pl eadi ngs i n Tw addl e I
. Pl ai nt i ffs ar gue both t hatt he s chedul i ng or deri n T w a dd le I d id n o t re stric t th e ir a b ili tyto b rin g o th e r l e g a l a c tio n s, a n d th a t th e yw e re n o t in ter e ste d in “s pl i t t i ng” thei rcl ai m butr atherj oi ni ng i tt hr ough cons ol i dat i on. A ft era r evi ew of t he
r e c o r d , we f

i n d i twa s a n a b u s e o f

d i s c r e t i o n t o d i s mi s s t h i s c a s e o n t h e me r i t s a n d we t her efor e r ever s e. I. P la in tif f s f ile d th e f ir s t a c tio n , Tw addl e I, i n J u n e 2 0 0 4 a g a i n s tR K E T ru c k i n g o n l y,
as s er t i ng cl ai m s forvi ol at i on of fe der al and s t at e w age law s , br eac h of contr act , and pr om i s s or yes t oppel
. T he magi s t r at e j udge ent er ed a Pr el i m i naryPr etr i al O r deri n O ct ober 2004 t hatpr ovi ded, among ot hert hi ngs , t hat“[m]ot i ons addr es s i ng t he j oi nderof addi t i onal par t i es and amendm ent s t o t he pl eadi ngs m aybe fi l ed, i f at al l , by February 2, 2005. ” O t her d ea d li n es in clud ed a d isco v erycu tof f o f J u n e 1 , 2 0 0 5 , an d that m o ti o n s fo r sum m ary j udgm entbe fi l ed no l at ert han J ul y1, 2005. 2 I n excha ngi ng offe r s of s et t l ement i n ear l yM ay2005, couns el forR K E T rucki ng added, i n cl os i ng, t hatot hereconomi c condi t i ons w er e pl aci ng a hea vyfi nanci al bur den on t h e c o m p a n y s u c h t h a ti t w a s p o s s i b l e t h a tf u r t h e rl i t i g a t i o n m i g h tr e s u l ti n b a n k ru p t c y. T her e i s l i t t l e ques t i on t hatt he s uggest i on of bankrupt cyw as t he s par k t hatpr om pt ed pl ai nt i ffs t o br i ng cl ai m s agai ns tD i em and K i bl er , pr es i dentand vi ce- pr es i dentof R K E , asNo. 05-4428 3

“empl oy er s ” undert he def i ni t i ons forfede r al and s t at e w age l aw s . T her e i s al s o no ques t i on t hatpl ai nt i ffs coul d have c hos en t o m ake an unt i m el y m ot i on t o amend the compl ai ntt o add D i em and K i bl eras defe ndant s i n Tw addl e I, w hi ch w oul d have r equi r ed pl ai nt i ffs t o s how “g o o d ca u se” fo r an ex ten s io n o f th e ex p ir ed d ea d li n e u n d er F ed
. R
. C iv. P. 16 (b) b ef o re le a v e to a m e n d c o u ld b e c o n s id e re d u n d e r F e d . R . C iv . P . 1 5 (a ). Lear y v. D aes chner , 349 F
. 3 d 8 8 8 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 3 ). P lai n ti ff s d id n o t cho o se th at rou te, h o w ev er. I ns t ead, pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed a s epar at e compl ai nt on M ay 4, 2005. D i em and K i bl erfi l ed bo th an an sw erand a mot i on t o di s m i s s t he compl ai nti n J ul y2005, w hi ch w as m etby p l ai nt i ffs ’ m ot i on t o cons ol i dat e thi s cas e w i t h Tw addl e I
. T he tw o cases w ere pend i ng in th e sa m e f

e d e ra l d istric t co u rt b e f

o re d if f e re n t d istric t ju d g e s (a lth o u g h th e sa m e m a g istra te jud g e w as a ssign ed to ea ch ). W ith o u t ci ti n g to a c o u rtrule o r c ase au tho ri ty , the d istri ct co u rt concl uded that al l ow i ng pl ai nt i ffs t o pur s ue the ca s e w oul d “ar guabl yendor s e the pur s ui tof
w as t eful , expens i ve, and dupl i cat i ve l i t i gat i on if cl ai m - s pl i t t i ng beca m e an issue
. ” A l s o,

“ [ c ]o n c e rn s a b o u t cla im -sp lit tin g a sid e , g ra n tin g th e m o tio n to c o n so lid a te w o u ld e f f e c tiv e ly endor s e the s t r at egi c ci r cumvent i on of j udi ci al or der s . ” J udgm entdi s m i s s i ng t he compl ai nt
w as ent er ed, and thi s appea l fol l ow ed. II. T he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on r es t ed on i t s r ej ect i on of the pl ai nt i ffs ’ pr offe r ed r eas ons forfi l i ng a s econd a ct i on t o as s er tt he cl ai m s agai ns tD i em and K i bl er . Pl ai nt i ffs expl ai ned t hatt he cl ai m s i n T

w a dd le II w e r e b r o u g h t i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e t h r e a to f p o s s i b l e b a n k ru p t c y, and thatt heydi d notat t empt t o as s er tt hos e cl ai m s byamendm enti n T w a dd le I beca us e anyNo. 05-4428 4

Plain tiffs argue on app eal that the limitation s bar was a real one as they hadalready be e n time- 3 barr ed f ro m s ee ki ng lo st

wa ge s fo r pay

p eriod s mo re than thre e y ears b ef or e the co mp la int was f

il ed i n Tw ad dle I
. del ay i n a deci s i on on a mot i on t o amend w oul d have c aus ed addi t i onal per i ods of l os tpay to f a ll o u tsid e th e sta tu te o f lim itatio n s. A lth o u g h th e se c o n d a c tio n w a s f iled o n th e h e e ls
o f th e d isc lo su re th a t R K E w a s in f in a n c ial d if

f icu lty , the d istric t co u r t a g re e d w ith d e f e n d a n ts th a t th e risk o f b a n k r u p tc yw a s p re se n t as so o n a s th e c o m p lain t w a s f iled in Tw addl e I
. T he di s t r i ctcour tt ook um br age a tt he s ugges t i on t hata mot i on t o amend m i ght nothave be en r es ol ved i n a t i m el y w ay , not ed t hat expedi t ed consi der at i on coul d have be en
r eques t ed, and poi nt ed outt hatpl ai nt i ffs had al l eged a w i l ful vi ol at i on of fe der al w age a nd
ov ert i m e l aw s for w hich t he li m i t at i on s peri od w ou l d b e t hree y ears . 3 T o be s ur e, t he cl ai m s as s er t ed i n T w a dd le II

coul d have be en br oughti n Tw addl e I ei t heri ni t i al l yorbyamendm ent . W hi l e the di s t r i ctcour t w as nots at i s fi ed w i t h t he expl anat i ons of pl ai nt i ffs ’ couns el fornothavi ng done s o, as w e s ee i t , t he i m por t antques t i on i s w hetherpl ai nt i ffs w er e r equi r ed t o br i ng t hes e cl ai m s i n Tw addl e I
. T o s t ar t , pl ai nt i ffs cont end thatt he pr etr i al s chedul i ng or derent er ed i n Tw addl e I d id notaddr es s , l etal one pr ohi bi t , pl ai nt i ffs fr om i ns t i tut i ng anotherl egal act i on. T hi s i s evi dent from t he d i stri ctcou rt ’s fi nd i ng t hat t o all ow this case t o p roceed w ou l d eff ect i velyend orse t he s t r at egi c ci r cumvent i on of the s chedul i ng or deri n Tw addl e I
. A l t ho ug h Fe d. R. Ci v. P. 4 1 (b ) au th o riz e s the in v o lu n tar y d ism iss a l o n th e m e rits fo r fa ilu re o f th e p lain tiff

to c o m p ly
w i t h anyor der of t he cour t , t he di s t r i ctcour tdi d notr el yon t hi s pr ovi s i on i n di s m i s s i ng t he compl ai nti n t hi s cas e.No. 05-4428 5

Co ns ol i da t i onw ou l d no tr a i s e the p r os pe c tof re l at i onba c k be c aus e co ns ol i da t i ondo e s no tme r ge 4 th e su it s into a si ng le ac ti on , ch an g e th e ri ght s of th e part ie s, o r m ake part ie s ino nes ui t p arti es in th e othe r. John son v. Manhatta n R

y. Co. , 2 89 U
. S
. 4 79 , 4 96
- 97 ( 19 33 ) (i nt er pr et in gp re de ce ss or

o f R ul e 42 (a))
. N orhas t her e bee n anys ugges t i on t hatD i em and K i bl ers houl d have be en j oi ned as
n e c e s s a r y p a rt ie s to th e f ir s t c a s e . F ED . R. C IV . P. 19. R ather , t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on emphasi zed thati f thi s act i on w er e perm i t t ed t o pr ocee d, i tw oul d be r eas onabl e t o expec t t hat D i em and K i bl er m i ght s eek t o j oi n R K E T rucki ng as a defe ndant i n this case
. T he d is tr ic t co u rt a d d e d th a t it c o u ld n o t se e h o w R K E “ w o u ld n o t b e a n in d is p e n s a b l e p a rt y ,”
w hi ch w oul d caus e R K E t o fac e the pr os pectof dual l i t i gat i on on t he s ame i s s ues . W hether
o r n o t R K E w o u ld b e a n in d isp e n sa b le p a rty , d ism iss a l o f th is c a se f o r n o n jo in d e r w o u ld o n ly b e p ro p e r if R K E c o u ld n o t b e jo in e d a s a p a rt y . Id
. N o i m pedi m entt o j oi nderi s appar ent fr om t hi s r ecor d. Fur t her , t he pot ent i al bur dens of dual l i t i gat i on w oul d be addr es s ed byt he p ro p o s e d c o n s o lid a tio n . F ED . R. C IV . P. 42( a) ( “W hen act i ons i nvol vi ng a comm on ques t i on
o f law o r fa c t a re p e n d in g b e f o re th e c o u rt, i t m a yo rd e r a jo in t h e a rin g o r tria l o f a n yo r a ll t he mat t er s i n i s s ue i n t he ac t i ons ; i tm ayor deral l t he ac t i ons cons ol i dat ed; and i t m aym ake
s uch or der s conce r ni ng pr ocee di ngs t her ei n as m ayt end t o avoi d unneces s arycos t s or d elay
. ”). 4 A l t hough i t s eems t hat t he di s t r i ct cour t s t opped sh o rt o f d ismi s s i ng T w a dd le II as dupl i cat i ve of Tw addl e I , defe ndant s D i em and K i bl ers quar el yar gued fordi s m i s s al on t hat bas i s . “A s betw een f

eder al di s t r i ct co u rt s, . . . t hough no pr eci s e rul e [c oncerni ng t he
c o n tem p o ra n e o u s e x e rc ise o f c o n c u rre n t ju risd ictio n ] h a s e v o lv e d , the g e n e ra l p rin c ip le is t o avoi d dupl i cat i ve l i t i gat i on. ” C ol o. R i verW at erC ons er vat i on D is t . v. U ni t ed Stat es , 424No. 05-4428 6

U
. S. 800, 817 ( 1976) ( ci t i ng Ker ot es tM f g. C o. v. C

- O

- Tw o F i r e Equi p. C o. , 342 U
. S. 180, 1 8 3 (1 9 5 2 )). F a c e d w ith a d u p lic a tiv e su it, th e f e d e ra l co u rt m a ye x e rc ise its d isc re tio n to
s t ay or di s m i s s t he s ui t befor e i t , al l ow bot h fede r al cas es t o pr ocee d, or enj oi n t h e p art i es f ro m p ro c e e d in g in th e o th e r s u it. Smi th v . S EC , 1 2 9 F
. 3 d 3 5 6 , 3 6 1 (6th C ir
. 1 9 9 7 ). “[S] i m pl e di s m i s s al of the s econd s ui ti s [a] com m o n d ispos i t i on beca us e pl ai nt i ffs h a v e n o r i g h tt o ma i n t a i n t wo a c t i o n s o n t h e s a me s u b j e c t i n t h e s a me c o u r t , a g a i n s tt h e s a me defe ndantatt he s ame t i m e. ” Cur t is v . Ci t i b a n k , N. A. , 2 2 6 F
. 3 d 1 3 3 , 1 3 8 -39 (2d C ir
. 2 0 0 0 );
s ee al s o Mis s our i v. P r udent i alHeal th C ar e Pl an, I nc. , 259 F. 3d 949, 953- 54 ( 8t h C i r . 2001) ( j oi ni ng ot hercour t s t hathave he l d a di s t r i ctcour tm aydi s m i s s one of t w o i dent i cal pendi ng
a c tio n s). It is a n a b u se o f d isc re tio n , h o w e v e r, to p re v e n t a p a rty f ro m p ro c e e d in g in a su it th a t is n o t tr u ly d u p lic a tiv e . Sm ith , 1 2 9 F .3 d a t 3 6 1 . H e re , T w a dd le I and T

w a dd le II

w ere fi l ed i n t he s ame c our t , ar i s e out of t he s ame f act s , empl oyt he s ame l egal t heor i es , and s eek to r ec o v er fo r the sam e l o st w ag es. T h e a cti o n s are n o t i d en ti ca l, h o w ev er, be ca u se th eyw ere broug ht agai nstdiffer ent defend ants . Fi nal l y , defe ndant s ar gued i n t he di s t r i ct cour t t hatfi l i ng t w o act i ons ar i s i ng outof t he
s ame fact s amount ed t o “cl ai m - s pl i t t i ng, ” w hi ch thi s cour ts t r ongl ydi s appr oved of i n W i lki ns
v. Jake w ay , 1 8 3 F .3 d 5 2 8 , 5 3 2 n .4 , 5 3 4 -3 5 (6 th C ir. 1 9 9 9 ) (b yb rin g in g tw o d if f e re n t su its
w hi ch pr es ent ed tw o di ffe r entt heor i es of the ca s e ar i s i ng fr om t h e sam e factual s i tuat i on,
couns el engage d i n t he pr eci s e beha vi ort hat t he doctr i ne of re s ju d ica ta see k s to d isco u rag e). A s p la in tif

f s p o in t o u t, h o w e v e r, W

i lki ns does not i nvi t e di s m i s s al s bas ed on cl ai m - s pl i t t i ng. I n fac t , des pi t e w hat w as des cr i bed as a “cl as s i c cas e” of cl ai m - s pl i t t i ng, t hi s cour tr ever s edNo. 05-4428 7

entr y of sum m ary j udgm ent on t he gr ounds of re s ju d ica ta ( or cl ai m pr ecl us i on) i n favorof d e f e n d a n ts. T h e c o u rt a d d e d a n a d m o n iti o n th a t a lth o u g h th e p lain tiff h a d “ lu c k e d o u t” beca us e the fi r s tcas e w as notr es ol ved bya fi nal deci s i on on t he m er i t s as t o al l of t he d e f e n d a n ts n a m e d in th e se c o n d su it, “ n o t ev e ryc laim a n t w h o b rin g s tw o se p a ra te s u its
ar i s i ng fr om one mut ual s etof fa ct s w i l l be s o for tunat e. ” 183 F. 3d at535. T hi s i m pl i es t hat p lain tiff s e n g a g e in c laim -sp lit tin g a t th e p e ril o f h a v in g o n e c a se b a rre d b yth e d e c isio n in th e o th e r. 1 8 J a m e s W m . M o o re , e t a l., M OORE ’ S F E D E RA L P RACTI CE § 133. 51 ( 3d ed. 1997) ( pr ecl us i on i s t he enf

or cementm echa ni s m agai ns tcl ai m - s pl i t t i ng) ; 1 A M . J UR . 2 D A ct i ons § 103 ( penal t yforvi ol at i ng rul e agai ns t cl ai m - s pl i t t i ng i s t hat adj udi cat i on r eac hed fi r s ti n one
ac ti o n w il l hav e p rec lusive ef fe ct on the s ec o n d ac ti o n ). T h e f ili n g o f m u lti p le f

e d e ra l a c tio n s ar isin g o u t o f th e sa m e f a c ts is s tr o n g ly dis cou raged, and plai nti ffs t ake suc h a co urse att he p eri l t hat the ad j ud i cat i on o f o n e case
w i l l have pr ecl us i ve ef

fec ton t he other
. H er e, ther e w as no vi ol at i on of a c our tor der , no g rou n d s fo r dism issal fo r no n joind er, an d n o b asis to co n clud e tha t th e c ase s w ere du pli cat i ve. A ccordi ng l y , dis m i ssal of the com plai nt on t he m eri t s i s RE VE RS ED and the case i s RE M ANDE D forfur t herpr ocee di ngs cons i s t entw i t h t hi s opi ni on.