AVERHART v. COMMUNICATION WORKERS OF AMERICA et al
Filing
107
OPINION. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 2/7/2014. (gxh)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Jesse J. Averhart,
Plaintiff,
Civ. No. 10-6163
v.
OPINION
Communications Workers of America, et al.,
Defendants.
THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order Granting Voluntary
Dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). (Doc. No. 98). Defendants oppose this motion. (Doc. Nos.
102 and 103). The Court has issued the Opinion below based upon the written submissions of
the parties and without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b). For the
reasons included herein, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff has been an unsuccessful candidate for the presidency of CWA Local 1033 (a
defendant in this matter) on three different occasions. (Doc. No. 102). Plaintiff has filed two
lawsuits contesting these elections. (Doc. No. 102). The present lawsuit concerns elections in
2005 and 2008. This lawsuit began on October 25, 2010 when Plaintiff filed the initial
complaint in state court, alleging common law breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty.
(Doc. No. 1). On November 24, 2010, this matter was removed to this court. (Id.).
On February 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed a second complaint contesting the 2012 CWA Local
presidential election. See Civ. Action No. 13-1093.
Additionally, Plaintiff has unsuccessfully sought to remand this matter to state court,
(Doc. No. 9), amend the initial complaint to add new parties and claims, (Doc. No. 39),
disqualify counsel from joint representation of the defendants, (Doc. No. 67), consolidate
Plaintiff’s first and second actions, (Doc. No. 13), and disqualify counsel, (Doc. No. 14).
Plaintiff now moves to dismiss this action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2).
ANALYSIS
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides that once a defendant files an Answer,
a plaintiff may not voluntarily dismiss the action except upon an order of the court, “on the terms
that the court considers proper.” Johnston Development Group, Inc. v. Carpenters Local Union
No. 1578, 728 F.Supp. 1142, 1146 (D.N.J. 1990). Whether a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal should be
granted is within the sound discretion of the court. Ferguson v. Eakle, 492 F.2d 26, 28 (3d. Cir.
1974). Courts do not permit voluntary dismissals where the defendants would suffer “substantial
prejudice.” Johnston, 728 F.Supp. at 1146.
In determining whether a voluntary dismissal will cause prejudice, the Court considers
the following factors: “(1) the expense of a second litigation; (2) the effort and expense incurred
by defendant in preparing for trial in the current case; (3) the extent to which the case is
progressing; and (4) plaintiff’s diligence in bringing the motion to dismiss.” Assadourian v.
Harb, 2009 WL 2424704, at *3 (D.N.J. Aug. 6, 2009).
Here, an analysis of these factors shows that dismissal is improper. Plaintiff has filed a
second Complaint, Civil Action No. 13-CV-1093, which addresses several issues that are also
presented in the first Complaint. If the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s first Complaint, Defendants
2
will be forced to re-litigate many issues that were addressed over the past three years.
Additionally, Defendants have incurred substantial expenses in litigating this case over the past
three years. The parties have completed paper discovery and have produced more than 4,000
pages of documents in connection with this action. Thus, dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) is not proper.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the motion is denied.
/s/ Anne E. Thompson
ANNE E. THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.
Date: 2/7/14
3
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?