Wolfe et al v. Schindler Elevator Corporation et al
Filing
14
ORDER granting 10 motion to dismiss case without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Susan C Bucklew on 11/17/2014. (JD)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
MARGARET and GARLAND WOLFE,
as co-Personal Representatives of the
Estate of Chad Wolfe,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 8:14-cv-2448-T-24 AEP
SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION
and HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
AVIATION AUTHORITY,
Defendants.
_________________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Voluntary Dismissal
Without Prejudice. (Doc. No. 10). Defendant Schindler Elevator Corporation opposes the
motion. (Doc. No. 13). As explained below, the motion is granted.
I. Background
Plaintiffs filed suit against Defendants Schindler Elevator Corporation (“SEC”) and
Hillsborough County Aviation Authority (“HCAA”) on September 26, 2014. In their complaint
(Doc. No. 2), Plaintiffs assert a wrongful death action against SEC and HCAA for their alleged
negligence that contributed to the death of Chad Wolfe. Chad Wolfe died after attempting to use
an elevator owned by HCAA and manufactured by SEC.
On September 29, 2014, prior to service of the complaint on SEC or HCAA, SEC
removed this case based on diversity jurisdiction (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiffs are citizens of
Pennsylvania; SEC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey,
and HCAA is a citizen of Florida. Since HCAA, a forum defendant, had not yet been served,
SEC stated that removal was proper and was not barred by the forum defendant rule.
On October 17, 2014, SEC filed its answer in this case. (Doc. No. 6). On October 16,
2014, HCAA consented to removal, and HCAA filed its answer on October 21, 2014.1 (Doc.
No. 5, 7). On October 23, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion for voluntary dismissal
without prejudice. (Doc. No. 10).
II. Standard of Review
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) allows a court to dismiss a plaintiff’s case at the
plaintiff’s request on such terms that the court considers proper. In considering such a motion,
this Court must keep in mind the following:
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not a matter of right.
Although [the Eleventh Circuit] ha[s] said that in most cases a
voluntary dismissal should be allowed unless the defendant will
suffer some plain prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second
lawsuit, the decision whether or not to grant such a dismissal is
within the sound discretion of the district court . . . . [W]hen
exercising its discretion in considering a dismissal without prejudice,
the court should keep in mind the interests of the defendant, for Rule
41(a)(2) exists chiefly for the protection of defendants.
Fisher v. Puerto Rico Marine Management, Inc., 940 F.2d 1502, 1502-03 (11th Cir.
1991)(internal citations omitted).
III. Motion for Voluntary Dismissal
Plaintiffs move to dismiss this case in order to pursue their claims against Defendants in
state court. Because SEC removed this case before HCAA was served, SEC was able to avoid
the forum defendant rule set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). The forum defendant rule provides
that an action removable on the basis of diversity jurisdiction “may not be removed if any of the
1
HCAA filed an amended answer on November 10, 2014. (Doc. No. 12).
2
parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the [forum] State.” 28
U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2)(emphasis added).
In this case, it is undisputed that SEC removed this case before either defendant was
served, and in doing so, SEC was able to avoid the forum defendant rule that would have
prevented removal after HCAA was served. As a result, Plaintiffs rely on Goodwin v. Reynolds,
757 F.3d 1216 (11th Cir. 2014), to support their contention that this Court should grant their
motion for voluntary dismissal so that Plaintiffs can file suit against HCAA in state court, serve
HCAA, and then add SEC as a defendant and ensure that the case is tried in state court.
In Goodwin, the plaintiff filed suit against three defendants in state court on December
29th, and diversity subject matter jurisdiction existed. See id. at 1218. Three business days later
on January 4th, after one of the defendants (Fikes) received a courtesy copy of the complaint,
Fikes and the second defendant (Precoat) removed the case to federal court. See id. The
removal was done before any of the defendants, including the forum defendant (Reynolds), was
served. See id. Additionally, Precoat filed an answer on the same day as the removal, which
prevented the plaintiff from moving for a voluntary dismissal without a court order. See id. at
1218-19. Due to cutbacks and personnel shortages in the state court’s clerk’s office, the service
packages for the defendants had not been processed as of January 17th. See id. at 1219 n.5.
The plaintiff moved to dismiss the federal case without prejudice so that she could re-file
the case in state court in such a manner as to irrefutably trigger the forum defendant rule and
prevent a second removal. See id. The district court granted the motion, and the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed, stating:
The forum-defendant rule clearly contemplates Plaintiff’s ability to
defeat Defendants’ purported right of removal in this case. It is
3
undisputed that if Reynolds had been served before Fikes and Precoat
removed this case, the forum-defendant rule would have barred
removal. The only reason this case is in federal court is that the nonforum defendants accomplished a pre-service removal by exploiting,
first, Plaintiff’s courtesy in sending them copies of the complaint and,
second, the state court’s delay in processing Plaintiff’s diligent
request for service. Defendants would have us tie the district court’s
hands in the face of such gamesmanship on the part of Defendants.
Moreover, [Defendants’] argument, if accepted, would turn the
statute’s “properly joined and served” language on its head.
Id. at 1221. The Goodwin court also stated in a footnote that “[a]nother indication of
gamesmanship is Precoat’s filing of an answer on the same day that it filed the notice of
removal, before it was even served, in an apparent effort to extinguish Plaintiff’s right to dismiss
the case without prejudice and without the need for a court order.” Id. at 1221 n.14.
Thus, the Goodwin court looked at the purpose of the forum defendant rule, which is to
prevent gamesmanship by plaintiffs—to prevent plaintiffs from blocking removal by joining a
forum defendant against whom the plaintiff does not intend to proceed against. See id. at 1221.
As a result, the Goodwin court stated that “[b]ecause the likely purpose of [the properly joined
and served language in § 1441(b)(2)] is to prevent gamesmanship by plaintiffs, . . . we cannot
believe that it constrains the district court’s discretion under Rule 41(a)(2) to undo
Defendants’ gamesmanship in the circumstances at bar.” Id.
The Goodwin court noted that the plaintiff had not acted in bad faith and that the
defendants did not suffer any clear legal prejudice from the district court’s dismissal. See id. at
1222. While the court noted that the defendants lost their preferred federal forum, the court
stated that on the facts of the case, that loss did not amount to clear legal prejudice, because the
“[d]efendants purported right to be in federal court was based on a technicality; it was not at the
core of what the removal statute protects.” Id.
4
In the instant case, SEC argues that Goodwin is distinguishable, because it did not engage
in the same gamesmanship that occurred in Goodwin: (1) SEC did not exploit Plaintiffs’
courtesy in any way, because the Plaintiffs did not provide it with a courtesy copy of the
complaint; (2) SEC did not exploit the state court’s delay in processing Plaintiffs’ request for
service, because the state court clerk issued the summonses the same day as Plaintiff filed the
case; and (3) SEC did not file its answer on the same day that it removed this case. SEC
contends that no gamesmanship occurred, because it found out about the state court filing when
it received notice via a report by Courthouse News. Furthermore, SEC knew about the
upcoming litigation because SEC had been in communications with Plaintiffs’ counsel for 17
months before the state court suit was filed.
This Court finds that SEC’s arguments miss the point. SEC does not have an undeniable
right to have this case heard in federal court. Plaintiffs have a non-frivolous claim against
HCAA, the forum defendant, who was at all times properly joined and about to be served prior to
removal. Just because SEC found out about the lawsuit from a source other than Plaintiffs
themselves does not undermine the fact that SEC purposefully removed this case before
Plaintiffs served either defendant in order to avoid the forum defendant rule. SEC’s exploitation
of the forum defendant rule and the technicality that HCAA was not yet served does not insulate
it from the Court’s power to grant Plaintiffs a voluntary dismissal without prejudice. Instead, in
order to ensure that Plaintiffs are able to choose and retain the state court forum that they are
entitled to under § 1441(b)(2), SEC’s actions now require that Plaintiffs dismiss this case, file a
new suit in state court against HCAA only, serve HCAA, and then add SEC to the lawsuit. This
Court will grant Plaintiffs their requested relief due to SEC’s manipulation of the forum
5
defendant rule.
The Court notes that SEC cites two Middle District of Florida cases, which predate
Goodwin, that hold that in a diversity case, a non-forum defendant may remove a case despite
the fact that a forum defendant has been joined as long as the forum defendant has not yet been
served. See North v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 600 F. Supp.2d 1263, 1270 (M.D. Fla. 2009);
ViSalus, Inc. v. Then, 2013 WL 3682239, at *3 (M.D. Fla. July 12, 2013). The Goodwin court
specifically declined to address whether its case was, in fact, removable and assumed for the
purposes of the decision that it was. See Goodwin, 757 F.3d at 1220 n.12, 1222. Furthermore,
even if removal was technically correct in the instant case, that does not mean that the Court is
without the power to grant Plaintiffs’ request for dismissal.
IV. Conclusion
Based on Goodwin, this Court concludes that Defendants will not suffer clear legal
prejudice by a dismissal. Furthermore, this Court notes that Plaintiffs have not acted in bad
faith. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Voluntary
Dismissal (Doc. No. 10) is GRANTED. This case is dismissed without prejudice, and the Clerk
is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, this 17th day of November, 2014.
Copies to:
Counsel of Record
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?