Mathes v. Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc.

Filing 40

RULING AND ORDER granting with prejudice 29 Motion for Voluntary Dismissal; denying as moot 29 Motion to Withdraw Supplemental and Amending Petition; denying as moot 12 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 27 MOTION for Leave to File REPLY to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 31 Motion for Leave to File a Reply to Defendants Memorandum in Opposition. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 8/25/2017. (KAH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ROSIE MATHES

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
PINNACLE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

NO.: 16-00538-BAJ-RLB

RULING AND ORDER
Before the Court is the Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 12) filed by
Pinnacle Entertainment, Inc. (“Defendant”) and the Motion for Voluntary
Dismissal and Motion to Withdraw Supplemental and Amending Petition
(Doc. 29) filed by Rosie Mathes (“Plaintiff”). Each party filed responses, (Docs. 25,
30), and replies, (Docs. 27, 31). 1 For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Voluntary Dismissal is GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s Motion to
Withdraw its Supplemental and Amending Petition and Defendant's Motion
for Summary Judgment are DENIED AS MOOT.
I.

BACKGROUND
On July 12, 2016, Plaintiff filed suit in Louisiana state court, alleging that she

slipped and fell on a wet bathroom floor at the L’Auberge Casino & Hotel in Baton
Rouge, Louisiana. (Doc. 1-2 at p. 1). She alleges that due to the fall she hit her head
and was knocked unconscious. Id. at p. 2. Plaintiff named Pinnacle d/b/a L’Auberge

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to the Motion for Voluntary Dismissal
are styled as motions brought by Pinnacle and PNK (Baton Rouge) Partnership. However, PNK is
not a party to this case. (Doc. 28 at p. 5).
1

1

Casino & Hotel Baton Rouge, Pinnacle’s alleged insurer, ABC Insurance Company,
and Jane Doe, a Pinnacle employee as defendants. Id. at p. 1.

On August 10, 2016,

Pinnacle removed the matter to the Court, alleging diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. 1). Pinnacle filed an Answer on August 29, 2016, denying the
allegations in the Petition. (Doc. 3).
On January 31, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental and Amending Petition
for Damages, seeking to name PNK (Baton Rouge) Partnership (“PNK”) and its
insurer, Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) as defendants, and to
correctly identify defendant “Jane Doe” as Cionne Stewart. (Doc. 10 at p. 1-2). This
Petition, however, failed to adequately allege the citizenship of the parties, and the
Magistrate Judge issued an Order on February 10, 2017, requiring Plaintiff to file a
proposed pleading that properly set forth the citizenship of all parties. (Doc. 16). In
the meantime, on February 3, 2017, the Defendant filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Doc. 12).
On March 17, 2017, rather than file a proposed pleading, Plaintiff filed a
Motion to Remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, or in the alternative to allow
Plaintiff to voluntarily withdraw her Supplemental and Amending Petition for
Damages without prejudice because the Court had not granted her request to add
PNK, Ms. Stewart, or Zurich as defendants. (Docs. 24 at p. 1 and 24-1 at p. 9).
Alternatively, Plaintiff asked the Court to allow her to voluntarily dismiss this case
without prejudice. (Doc. 24 at p. 1). The Magistrate Judge denied these motions
without prejudice because Plaintiff’s requests were inherently contradictory. (Doc.
2

28 at pp. 4-5). The Magistrate Judge explained that because Ms. Stewart was not yet
a party to the case it was premature to seek a remand based on her non-diverse
citizenship. Id. at p. 5. Further, if the Court were to grant the Motion to Withdraw,
there would be no basis for Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and if the Court granted the
Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, the pending motions, including Plaintiff’s Motion to
Remand and Motion to Withdraw Supplemental and Amending Petition, would be
terminated.

Id. The Magistrate Judge thus ordered Plaintiff to file a motion for

voluntary dismissal within seven days, if she wished to dismiss the case. (Doc. 28 at.
p. 6). Plaintiff then filed a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal with or without prejudice
and a Motion to Withdraw its Supplemental and Amending Petition on April 27, 2017.
(Doc. 29). Plaintiff filed these motions because Pinnacle has asserted that it is not
the proper party in this case because the L’Auberge Casino & Hotel is owned by PNK,
and not Pinnacle. Id. at p. 1.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides that after a defendant files
an answer or motion for summary judgment “an action may be dismissed at the
plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” The
purpose of authorizing a court to condition a voluntary dismissal on proper terms is
“to prevent unfair prejudice to the other side in the case.” In re FEMA Trailer
Formaldahyde Prod. Liab. Litig., 628 F.3d 157, 162 (5th Cir. 2010). A decision as to
whether to grant a dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) lies within the sound discretion of

3

the district court. Davis v. Huskipower Outdoor Equip. Corp., 936 F.2d 193, 199 (5th
Cir. 1991).
One of the factors a court must consider when adjudicating a motion for
voluntary dismissal is whether the plaintiff seeks a dismissal with or without
prejudice. Schwarz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125, 129 (5th Cir. 1985). If a party seeks a
dismissal without prejudice, the motion “should be freely granted unless the
nonmoving party will suffer some plain legal prejudice other than the mere prospect
of a second lawsuit.” Elbaor v. Triparth Imaging, Inc., 279 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir.
2002). “Typical examples of such prejudice occur when a party proposes to dismiss
the case at a late stage of pretrial proceedings, or seeks to avoid an imminent adverse
ruling, or may on re-filing deprive the defendant of a limitations defense.” In re
FEMA Trailer, 628 F.3d at 162 (internal citations omitted).
But where a plaintiff seeks a dismissal with prejudice “[t]he situation is
different[.]” Schwarz, 767 F.2d at 129. That is because “[d]ismissal of an action with
prejudice is a complete adjudication of the issues presented by the pleadings and is a
bar to a further action between the parties.” Id. (quoting Smoot v. Fox, 240 F.2d 301,
303 (6th Cir. 1964)). As a result, some courts hold that a motion for voluntary
dismissal with prejudice must be granted. Id. at n. 5; see also 9 Charles Alan Wright
& Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2367 (3d ed. 2008) (collecting
cases). Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has not specifically
held that courts are required to grant voluntary motions to dismiss with prejudice, it
has made clear that “no matter when a dismissal with prejudice is granted, it does

4

not harm the defendant: The defendant receives all that he would have received had
the case been completed.” Id.
II.

DISCUSSION
Plaintiff seeks a voluntarily dismissal either with or without prejudice. (Doc.

29 at p. 1). Apparently, Plaintiff consents to a full judgment against itself, which will
bar future litigation against Defendant in this matter. See Schwarz, 767 F.2d at 129.
Defendant, nonetheless, argues that a dismissal without prejudice would be
inappropriate. (Doc. 30 at pp. 3-4). Defendant contends that it will be prejudiced
because it will face the prospect of a second lawsuit. (Doc. 30 at p. 3). But a dismissal
with prejudice bars such a suit. See Schwarz, 767 F.2d at 129. Defendant also argues
that it will be prejudiced because it has already expended significant time and
resources filing pleadings and memoranda, and there has been substantial discovery.
Id.

But if the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion for dismissal, Defendant would be

required to expend even more time and resources defending this suit in federal court.
Moreover, when an order of dismissal is entered, a “defendant receives all that he
would have received had the case been completed.” See Schwarz, 767 F.2d at 129
Defendant also argues that it will be prejudiced by a dismissal because
Plaintiff is attempting to avoid an imminent adverse ruling on the pending Motion
for Summary Judgment. Id. at pp. 3-4. A dismissal with prejudice, however, has the
same effect as a ruling in favor of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Indeed, both qualify as a complete adjudication of the dispute. See Schwarz, 767 F.2d
at 129. The Fifth Circuit has also made clear that even if a defendant prefers a

5

judgment on the merits because it believes that would vindicate its rights more than
a voluntary dismissal, “a defendant is entitled only to the protection of its legal rights,
not to a cleansing of the stench emitted by the plaintiff's complaint.” Id. at 130.
Defendant is thus not prejudiced by the Court’s decision to forgo evaluating the
merits of its Motion for Summary Judgment.
Finally, Defendant argues that a voluntary dismissal would result in the state
court claims against PNK, Ms. Stewart, and Zurich moving forward and that
Defendant may again be forced to seek to remove such claims to this Court for a
second time, resulting in a “lengthy and circuitous process[.]” (Doc. 30 at pp. 4-5).
However, when evaluating a motion for voluntary dismissal, the crucial question is
whether the defendant—not some other party—will suffer some plain legal prejudice.
See In re FEMA Trailer, 628 F.3d at 162; Schwarz, 767 F.2d at 129. PNK, Ms.
Stewart and Zurich are not parties to the action sub judice because the Court has not
allowed Plaintiff to file its proposed Supplemental and Amending Petition for
Damages. (Doc. 28 at p. 5). Whether such entities will suffer any prejudice is not
relevant to whether the Court should grant Plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal.
Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal with prejudice.
IV.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (Doc. 29) is
GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE.

6

IT

IS

FURTHER

ORDERED

that

the

Motion

to

Withdraw

Supplemental and Amending Petition (Doc. 29) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 12) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File a Reply
to Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
(Doc. 27) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File a Reply
to Defendant’s

Memorandum

in

Opposition

to Plaintiff’s

Motion

to

Withdraw Supplemental and Amending Petition and Motion for Voluntary
Dismissal (Doc. 31) is DENIED AS MOOT.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this 25th day of August, 2017.

_____________________________________
BRIAN A. JACKSON, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

7