the litigation in the form cast or in the plaintiffs chosen forum”). [¶ 9] If this Court were to retain jurisdiction only over those claims which arguably are barred by the relevant statutes of limitations and dismiss the remaining causes of action, this would force Sander-son to proceed in a manner akin to an improper splitting of his cause of action. See Freed v. Unruh, 1998 ND 34, ¶ 10, 575 N.W.2d 433 (allowing plaintiff to proceed with lawsuit would be analogous to an improper splitting of cause of action); Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Arlt, 61 N.W.2d 429, 434 (N.D.1953) (stating when there is a single cause of action, although there may be different kinds of damages, only one suit can be brought); Jacobson v. Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass’n, 73 N.D. 108, 11 N.W.2d 442 (1943) (<HOLDING>). Cf. Choice Fin. Group v. Schellpfeffer, 2005
holding that attorneys claim for professional services against person sui juris or against property of such person must rest upon contract of employment express or implied made with person sought to be charged or with his agent holding a person who has availed himself of part of single claim or obligation in action or defense is thereafter estopped from enforcing the remainder of it holding that a motion to intervene is not dispositive of a claim or defense of a party holding that in class action the claim or defense of the representative party must be typical of the claim or defense of each member of the class holding that the rule of splitting of causes of action as related to res judicata does not permit the owner of a single or entire cause of action or an entire indivisible demand to divide or split that cause of action and that all damages from a single wrongful act must be claimed in one action