1. Why did the plaintiff bring four different actions against the US?
2. What is the difference between claim splitting and claim preclusion?
3. Doesn't each action concern a different renewal period for the lease at issue? Why doesn't that make them different claims?
4. What if a defendant does not object to claim splitting and then one action comes to a judgment? May the defendant use claim preclusion to bar the other action? Why would allowing claim preclusion be unfair in such a case? Should issue preclusion still be allowed?
5. Does the defense of claim splitting apply when the claim is split
into actions brought in different jurisdictions?