Three lawsuits are running in parallel between Lindell and Dominion. Our reporting has focused on Lindell v. Dominion, resulting in coverage of the themes common among all of them. But there are differences, and the court ordered as much when they ruled to deny Dominion’s motions.
Dominion v. My Pillow & Lindell (Washington DC) – Dominion sued My Pillow & Lindell in D.C. for defamation and deceptive trade practices, saying Lindell’s public statements are libelous and slanderous and that they are designed to sell pillows.
My Pillow v. Dominion (Minnesota) – My Pillow sued Dominion, claiming first and fourth amendment violations and that Dominion is interfering with business through intimidation and weaponization of the legal process (“lawfare”).
Lindell v. Dominion (Minnesota) – Lindell sued Dominion separately, claiming he is entitled to recovery under the first and fourth amendment, abuse of process, civil conspiracy, and violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Dominion had moved to stay, or delay, proceedings in this case pending resolution of the ongoing suit Dominion v. Lindell in DC, arguing there is substantial overlap that would make it an inefficient waste of court resources and a burden to proceed with both in parallel. If the claims of the parties in each suit were near enough to identical that it was found by the court to be “duplicative litigation,” stay, it would have put My Pillow v. Dominion (Minnesota) on pause to awaited judgment in Dominion v. My Pillow &