The US District Court for the District of Columbia has dismissed a second class action lawsuit against the IRS filed by attorney Allen Buckley [4081097c]. The lawsuit challenged fees imposed by the IRS after Buckley was not selected as class counsel in the first lawsuit [4081097c]. The court ruled that it is inappropriate to have a class action while an identical suit is ongoing. While the doctrine of claim preclusion does not apply in this case because a final judgment has not been reached in the first case, the prohibition against claim-splitting does apply [4081097c].
This development highlights the challenges and limitations of pursuing multiple class action lawsuits on the same issue. The court's dismissal of the second lawsuit underscores the need for plaintiffs to consolidate their claims and avoid claim-splitting. It also emphasizes the importance of the court's role in managing class actions and ensuring the efficient resolution of similar cases [4081097c].
In a related development, the Federal Court in Australia has allowed law firms to run class actions off their own balance sheets and share in damages awards [ef50fd77]. This decision enables law firms to charge contingency fees in class actions, making the Federal Court the preferred venue for such cases. Previously, the Victorian government had allowed law firms to charge contingency fees in class actions in the state's Supreme Court, even for matters with little connection to Victoria [ef50fd77].
The Federal Court's decision to allow class action contingency fees provides law firms with greater flexibility and financial incentives to pursue class actions. By allowing law firms to run class actions off their own balance sheets, it reduces the financial risk for plaintiffs and increases access to justice. This decision also positions the Federal Court as a more attractive forum for class actions, potentially leading to an increase in the number of cases filed in the court [ef50fd77].