Boydston et al v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. et al

Filing 44

ORDER granting 38 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice; granting in part and denying in part 40 Defendants' Motion for Dismissal With Prejudice, Attorney's Fees and Costs; denying as moot 43 Defendants' Unopposed Motion to Remove Case from Trial Docket. This case is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the file. Signed by Judge Paul G. Byron on 8/8/2017. (SEN)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

ROBERT BOYDSTON, STEPHANIE
BOYDSTON, CHARLES ADAMS,
and GERTRUDE ADAMS,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 6:16-cv-1211-Orl-40KRS

HOME DEPOT USA, INC. and
ARMSTRONG FLOORING, INC.,
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on the following:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without
Prejudice (Doc. 38), filed May 12, 2017;
2. Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File
Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice and Defendants’ Motion for
Dismissal With Prejudice, Attorney’s Fees and Costs (Doc. 40), filed
May 23, 2017;
3. Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for
Dismissal With Prejudice (Doc. 42), filed June 2, 2017; and
4. Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Remove Case From Trial Docket and to
Suspend Pretrial Deadlines Pending Rulings on Dispositive Motions
(Doc. 43), filed June 2, 2017.

1

I.

BACKGROUND
On April 6, 2016, Plaintiffs initiated this lawsuit against Defendants in state court,

and, on July 5, 2016, Defendants removed. In their operative Complaint, Plaintiffs allege
eight claims relating to the purchase and use of certain engineered wood flooring product
that was manufactured by one Defendant and sold by the other. Plaintiffs claim that the
wood flooring product contained excessive levels of formaldehyde and that Plaintiffs
suffered injuries as a result. Defendants answered Plaintiffs’ Complaint on September 22,
2016.
During a pre-suit investigation of their claims, Plaintiffs submitted samples of the
wood flooring product for testing, which ultimately disclosed that the wood flooring product
contained excessive levels of formaldehyde. However, during discovery in this case,
Defendants submitted samples of the wood flooring product for testing as well, and those
tests revealed that the wood flooring product did not emit a detectable amount of
formaldehyde. According to the parties, it eventually became understood that Defendants
employed a superior, more accurate type of testing and that this testing is the only
accepted methodology for determining whether the wood flooring product at issue is
hazardous in the way Plaintiffs allege. Further complicating Plaintiffs’ case, Plaintiffs
discovered that the non-retained expert they consulted with to interpret the results of their
testing intends to recant his prior findings—the findings Plaintiffs relied on in filing this
lawsuit in the first place.
Due to these issues, Plaintiffs now seek to voluntarily dismiss this action pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), and they ask that their dismissal be without
prejudice. Defendants object, arguing that dismissal should be with prejudice due to the

2

enormous expense they have incurred because of this litigation, and they ask the Court
to award their reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. In the alternative, Defendants
contend that, if the Court permits Plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss this case without
prejudice, the Court should pre-emptively award costs pursuant to Rule 41(d)(1) in the
event Plaintiffs refile their lawsuit.
II.

DISCUSSION
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 permits a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an

action at any time before the defendant files an answer or a motion for summary
judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Once the defendant either answers the plaintiff’s
complaint or moves for summary judgment, the plaintiff may only voluntarily dismiss the
case with the defendant’s stipulated consent or with the Court’s permission. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), (a)(2). When the plaintiff seeks the Court’s permission, the Court
may grant voluntary dismissal on terms the Court considers proper. Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(a)(2). Pertinent to this Order, the Court may pre-emptively award the defendant all or
part of the costs it incurred in the voluntarily dismissed action should the plaintiff refile his
or her case in the future. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(d)(1).
Courts should grant a plaintiff’s motion for leave to voluntarily dismiss “unless the
defendant will suffer clear legal prejudice.” McCants v. Ford Motor Co., 781 F.2d 855,
856–57 (11th Cir. 1986). It is well-settled that “the mere prospect of a subsequent lawsuit”
does not constitute clear legal prejudice. Id. Nevertheless, a district court should weigh
the equities and determine what conditions, if any, should be attached to a voluntary
dismissal. See id. When the plaintiff seeks a voluntary dismissal without prejudice, it
may be appropriate to pre-emptively award the defendant its costs of litigation in the event

3

the plaintiff refiles his or her claims, especially where the defendant has expended
considerable cost in litigating the case. See Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Bogin Munns &
Munns, P.A., No. 6:07-cv-1999-Orl-19DAB, 2008 WL 2439812, at *3 (M.D. Fla. June 13,
2008).
After reviewing the parties’ briefs and the record as a whole, the Court finds that
Defendants will not suffer clear legal prejudice should Plaintiffs be permitted to voluntarily
dismiss this action.

However, the Defendants have been put through considerable

expense in defending against Plaintiffs’ claims, including engaging in discovery,
conducting five depositions, and retaining an expert to analyze the wood flooring product
at issue. Accordingly, the Court will award Defendants their costs of litigation in this case
should Plaintiffs refile their claims.
III.

CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without
Prejudice (Doc. 38) is GRANTED. This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
2. Defendants’ Motion for Dismissal With Prejudice, Attorney’s Fees and Costs
(Doc. 40) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendants’
motion is granted to the extent that Plaintiffs’ voluntary dismissal of this
action is conditioned on the payment of Defendants’ costs should Plaintiffs
file a new action based on or including the same claims asserted in this
action. The motion is otherwise denied.

4

3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d)(1), a Defendant shall
recover the reasonable costs it incurred in this action from any Plaintiff who
files a new action against the Defendant that is based on or includes the
same claim(s) asserted in this action.
4. Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Remove Case From Trial Docket and to
Suspend Pretrial Deadlines Pending Rulings on Dispositive Motions
(Doc. 43) is DENIED AS MOOT.
5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on August 8, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record

5