Parrish et al v. Range Resources Corporation et al

Filing 45

ORDER granting 38 Plaintiffs' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice and Brief in Support and dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 10/1/2015. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
CHRIS PARRISH, JR. and
MARK PARRISH,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
RANGE RESOURCES CORPORATION, )
RANGE RESOURCES MID-11392
)
CONTINENT, LLC,
)
RANGE PRODUCTION COMPANY,
)
and RANGE PRODUCTION
)
COMPANY, LLC,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-14-1283-M

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice and
Brief in Support, filed June 22, 2015. On June 24, 2015, defendants responded, and on July 1,
2015, plaintiffs replied. Based on the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
I.

Background
On November 17, 2014, defendants removed this action to this Court from the District

Court of Grady County, State of Oklahoma. On April 1, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs’
motion to remand back to state court. Now, plaintiffs seek to voluntarily dismiss this matter,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). Defendants contend that plaintiffs are
forum shopping and that they will be prejudiced if the Court dismisses this action. Defendants
ask the Court to deny plaintiffs’ motion, or alternatively, if the Court grants plaintiffs’ motion, to
impose the following conditions: (1) any subsequent suit filed by plaintiffs must be refiled in this
Court, and (2) the Court retains jurisdiction of this action for the limited purpose of entering any
order necessary to protect its jurisdiction if plaintiffs or their counsel refile this action.

Alternatively, in the event the Court grants plaintiffs’ motion, without the conditions, defendants
ask the Court to order plaintiffs to pay defendants their attorney fees, expenses, and costs
incurred in this case if plaintiffs refile this action in a different forum.
II.

Discussion
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) provides in pertinent part:
an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court
order, on terms that the court considers proper . . . . Unless the
order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph . . . is
without prejudice.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The Tenth Circuit has found that:
Rule 41(a)(2) provides no guarantee of federal jurisdiction to
protect a removed action. Thus, it is not an abuse of discretion for
the district court to dismiss an action without prejudice even where
the plaintiff’s only motive is to recommence the action in state
court.
Am. Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Sapulpa v. Bic Corp., 931 F.2d 1411, 1413 (10th Cir. 1991).
“Absent legal prejudice to the defendant, the district court normally should grant such a
dismissal.” Ohlander v. Larson, 114 F.3d 1531, 1537 (10th Cir. 1997). “The parameters of what
constitutes legal prejudice are not entirely clear, but relevant factors the district court should
consider include: the opposing party’s effort and expense in preparing for trial; excessive delay
and lack of diligence on the part of the movant; insufficient explanation of the need for a
dismissal; and the present stage of litigation. Each factor need not be resolved in favor of the
moving party for dismissal to be appropriate, nor need each factor be resolved in favor of the
opposing party for denial of the motion to be proper.” Id. (internal quotations and citations
omitted).
Having carefully reviewed the parties’ submissions, the Court finds that defendants will
not be prejudiced by the dismissal of this action. Specifically, the Court finds that this action is
2

still in the preliminary stages, no trial schedule has been set, and while the Court found
jurisdiction proper in this Court, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, defendants have not
shown how they will be prejudiced if this action is dismissed. The authority is clear; the possible
recommencement of this action in another forum is not enough to prevent the Court from
dismissing this action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2). Further, the Court declines to impose any
conditions on the dismissal of this action or require plaintiffs to pay attorney fees to defendants if
this action is refiled elsewhere. Therefore, the Court finds plaintiffs’ action should be dismissed
pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2).
III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion for

Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice and Brief in Support [docket no. 38] and DISMISSES
this action without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 1st day of October, 2015.

3