Mulkern v. Lowe's Home Center, LLC
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-07362
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Mulkern v. Lowe's Home Center, LLC, Judge Swain dismissed the duplicate employment lawsuit without prejudice.
Kevin Mulkern's duplicate lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice; the pending related case was not dismissed by this order. Lowe's Home Center, LLC and Heather McClow were affected as defendants in the dismissed complaint.
What happened
Kevin Mulkern sued Lowe's Home Center, LLC without a lawyer, alleging claims related to the termination of his employment. The court said he had already filed a substantially similar case involving the same termination, which remains pending in the district.
The court dismissed this complaint without prejudice because it duplicated the pending lawsuit. It also explained that Mulkern could seek permission to add any claims against Heather McClow to the pending case if those claims arose from the same events. The court denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees, finding that an appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered the dismissal and directed that judgment be entered.
The detailed version
- Mulkern v. Lowe's Home Center, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-07362
- Laura Swain
- Aug. 25, 2023
Background
Kevin Mulkern brought the action without a lawyer, asserting claims under federal-question and diversity jurisdiction concerning the termination of his employment with Lowe's Home Center, LLC. The court stated that Mulkern had already brought a substantially similar action concerning the same termination. That earlier action was filed in state court, removed to the federal district court, and remained pending there under docket number 7:23-CV-3689 (KMK).
The complaint also listed Heather McClow as a defendant, but alleged only that she worked for Lowe's Home Center, LLC. The opinion did not identify any other allegations against her.
Ruling
The court dismissed the complaint without prejudice as duplicative of Mulkern's pending suit. The court stated that Mulkern could not pursue a duplicate lawsuit while the substantially similar case was pending. Regarding any claims against McClow arising from the same transaction, the court said Mulkern could seek permission to pursue those claims in the pending action under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Judgment was ordered to be entered.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.