D. Maryland· 8/10/2004

Sensormatic Security Corp. v. Sensormatic Electronics Corp.

Citations

329 F. Supp. 2d 574
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15699
2004 WL 1778939

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

noting that “the doctrine of claim splitting applies to bar a plaintiff from filing a new lawsuit after the court in an earlier action denied leave to amend the complaint to add those claims”
“This rule against duplicative litigation, also referred to as ‘claim splitting,’ is the other action pending facet of the res judicata doctrine.”
“Thus, when a suit is pending in federal court, a plaintiff has no right to assert another action on the same subject in the same court, against the same defendant at the same time.”
“[W]hen a suit is pending in federal court, a plaintiff has no right to assert another action on the same subject in the same court, against the same defendant at the same time.” (quoting Curtis)
“Thus, when a suit is pending in federal court, a plaintiff has no right to assert another action ‘on the same subject in the same court, against the same defendant at the same time.’” (quoting Curtis v. Citibank, N.A., 226 F.3d 133, 138–39 (2d Cir. 2000))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Chasanow

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.