Poe v. Martin Transport, Inc.

Filing 46

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 6 Motion to Dismiss. ; denying as moot 14 Motion to Dismiss; denying as moot 15 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Elizabeth E Foote. (Williams, Lysandra)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JASON POE

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10-220

VERSUS

JUDGE ELIZABETH ERNY FOOTE

MARTIN TRANSPORT, ET AL

MAGISTRATE JUDGE HAYES

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice filed by Plaintiff [Record
Document 15]. Defendant opposes this motion stating that any dismissal should be with
prejudice.
At the status conference held on November 7, 2011, newly hired counsel for the
Plaintiff, Thomas Taylor Townsend, informed the Court that he intends to pursue the
Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice filed by previous counsel. For the reasons stated
below, the Court does hereby GRANT Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice
[Record Document 15] and does hereby DISMISS the Plaintiff’s claims against all
Defendants without prejudice. The Court does hereby DENY Defendant Martin
Transport’s two motions to dismiss [Record Documents 6 and 14] as MOOT.
REASONS FOR ORDER
Plaintiff is entitled to dismiss his claims as a matter of right if Defendant has filed
neither an answer nor a motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(I).
Martin has filed two motions to dismiss [Record Documents 6 and 14] but no answer
and no motion for summary judgment. Nevertheless, Martin has argued that its
motions to dismiss should be converted into motions for summary judgment because

Plaintiff attached a “Hazardous Materials Incident Report” and an e-mail between Mr.
Poe and his attorney’s office to his oppositions to Martin’s motions to dismiss [Record
Documents 7-1 and 21-1]. [Record Document 26, pp.7-9].
Part of the discretion enjoyed by district courts in deciding whether to convert a
motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment under 12(d) is the ability to
decide whether to exclude extra-pleadings materials presented to the court in the
context of a motion to dismiss from the court’s consideration of that motion. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(d) (“If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the
pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated
as one for summary judgment... ”) (emphasis added); Isquith for and on Behalf of
Isquith v. Middle South Utilities, Inc., 847 F.2d 186, 194 n.3 (5th Cir. 1988) (holding that
Rule 12(b)(6) gives a district court complete discretion to determine whether or not to
accept any material beyond the pleadings that is offered in conjunction with a Rule
12(b)(6) motion). When the material outside the pleadings is scanty, incomplete, or
inconclusive and when it will not aid in the rational resolution of a motion for summary
judgment, it is appropriate for the district court to decline to consider it. Mitsui
Sumitomo Ins. Co. (H.K.) Ltd. V. P&O Ports La., Inc., 2007 WL 2463308 at *2 (E.D. La.
Aug. 28, 2007) (citing Isquith 847 F.2d 194 n.3). The six pages attached to Plaintiff’s
responses to Martin’s motions to dismiss are clearly incomplete and insufficient to
provide the basis for a rational ruling on summary judgment. Accordingly the Court
declines to consider them and convert Martin’s motions to dismiss into motions for

summary judgment. Therefore, since Martin has filed no motion for summary judgment
Plaintiff may dismiss his claims as a matter of right. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i).
Furthermore, the Court notes that even if Defendant’s motions to dismiss
[Record Documents 6 and 14] were converted into motions for summary judgment, the
factors that inform the Court’s discretion whether to grant Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B) favor dismissal without prejudice. The Court notes
that a virtually identical action is currently pending in state court. Martin will not be
prejudiced by the Court’s decision to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims, since the materials Martin
has prepared and filed in defense of this federal action can easily be re-filed in the state
action. Furthermore, the issues involved in this matter are entirely issues of state law.
Finally, the Court finds no indication that Plaintiff’s voluntary motion to dismiss was filed
in order to avoid an adverse ruling by the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.