Harrell et al v. Boeing Co., The, et al

Filing 118

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any remaining defendant objecting to the Court granting plaintiffs' amended motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice [#117] shall show cause in writing by noon on March 24 , 2015, why the motion for dismissal should not be granted. Failure to file a timely objection will result in the Court granting plaintiffs' motion without further notice by this Court. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any defendant with a pending cr ossclaim who objects to the dismissal of that crossclaim without prejudice upon the granting of plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice must show cause in writing by noon on March 24, 2015, why the crossclaims should not be dismissed. Any such objection shall also state the asserted basis of the Court's subject matter jurisdiction over its crossclaim. If a defendant with a pending crossclaim does not file an objection in compliance with this Show Cause Order by noon on March 24, 2015, the Court will construe the lack of an objection as a request for dismissal of its crossclaim without prejudice in the event that plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that fa ilure to file a timely objection in compliance with this Order to Show Cause will result in the Court granting plaintiffs' amended notice of voluntary dismissal [#117], dismissing all pending claims and crossclaims without prejudice (each par ty to bear its own costs), and closing this case without further notice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' first motion for voluntary dismissal [#116] is denied as moot. Signed by District Judge Catherine D. Perry on March 17, 2015. (MCB) Modified on 3/17/2015 (MCB).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
JAMES HARRELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
BOEING CO., et al.,,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:14CV479 CDP

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Yesterday, plaintiffs filed a motion for voluntary dismissal of all remaining defendants
without prejudice [#116]. This motion stated that it was being filed “pursuant to the discussions
held in conference with the Court and the Parties on March 16, 2015.” As there was no
conference held with the Court on March 16, 2015, the Clerk’s Office contacted plaintiffs and
advised them of this error. Instead of moving to withdraw this motion, plaintiffs filed an
amended motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice [#117]. I will therefore deny the first
motion for dismissal as moot.
I need to know whether any remaining defendants object to this dismissal. Therefore, any
remaining defendant objecting to the dismissal of plaintiffs’ case as set forth in the amended
motion for dismissal [#117] shall show cause in writing by noon on March 24, 2015, why the
dismissal should not be granted. Failure to file a timely objection will result in the Court
granting plaintiffs’ motion without further notice by this Court.
Moreover, it appears to the Court that any remaining pending crossclaims should also be
dismissed without prejudice if plaintiffs’ complaint is dismissed, which would terminate this
case. However, any defendant with a pending crossclaim objecting to the dismissal of that
crossclaim upon the granting of plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal must show cause in

writing by noon on March 24, 2015, why the crossclaims should not also be dismissed. If a
defendant with a pending crossclaim does not file an objection by noon on March 24, 2015, the
Court will construe the lack of an objection as a request for dismissal of its crossclaim without
prejudice in the event that plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal is granted.
Finally, if the case is not dismissed, and given the other changes that have taken place in
this case since it was removed, I question whether subject-matter jurisdiction continues to exist.
Any defendant asking the Court to retain jurisdiction over crossclaims shall also state the
asserted basis of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over its crossclaims.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any remaining defendant objecting to the Court
granting plaintiffs’ amended motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice [#117] shall
show cause in writing by noon on March 24, 2015, why the motion for dismissal should not be
granted. Failure to file a timely objection will result in the Court granting plaintiffs’ motion
without further notice by this Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any defendant with a pending crossclaim who
objects to the dismissal of that crossclaim without prejudice upon the granting of plaintiffs’
motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice must show cause in writing by noon on
March 24, 2015, why the crossclaims should not be dismissed. Any such objection shall also
state the asserted basis of the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over its crossclaim. If a
defendant with a pending crossclaim does not file an objection in compliance with this Show
Cause Order by noon on March 24, 2015, the Court will construe the lack of an objection as a
request for dismissal of its crossclaim without prejudice in the event that plaintiffs’ motion for
voluntary dismissal is granted.
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to file a timely objection in compliance with
this Order to Show Cause will result in the Court granting plaintiffs’ amended notice of
voluntary dismissal [#117], dismissing all pending claims and crossclaims without prejudice
(each party to bear its own costs), and closing this case without further notice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ first motion for voluntary dismissal [#116] is
denied as moot.

Dated this 17th day of March, 2015.

CATHERINE D. PERRY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3