United States District Court, D. Alaska
ORDER AND OPINION [RE: MOTION AT DOCKET 78]
JOHN
W. SEDWICK SENIOR JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
I.
MOTION PRESENTED
At
docket 78, Plaintiff Blane Barry (“Plaintiff”)
filed a partial motion to dismiss without prejudice,
requesting that the court allow the voluntary dismissal of
Defendant Safety Management Systems, LLC (“SMS”).
Defendants Shell Oil Company (“Shell”), Shell
Offshore, Inc. (“Shell Offshore”), and Arctia
Offshore, Ltd. (“Arctia”; collectively referred
to as “Opposing Defendants”) oppose the motion at
docket 82. SMS did not file an opposition. Plaintiff replies
at docket 85. Oral argument was not requested and would not
be of assistance to the court.
II.
BACKGROUND
On
August 17, 2012, Plaintiff was a crew member aboard the MSV
NORDICA, which was in navigable waters in Alaska, when he
sustained serious injuries while lifting heavy cables on the
vessel. He thereafter filed a series of lawsuits seeking
damages. In December 2012 he filed a negligence claim in
Harris County, Texas, against Shell and Arctia, but he later
voluntarily dismissed the suit after Arctia challenged the
court's personal jurisdiction over it. Plaintiff then
filed suit in Orleans Parish, Louisiana, naming Shell, Shell
Offshore, Arctia, and SMS as defendants. After the defendants
successfully challenged venue, the case was transferred to
East Baton Rouge Parish, Louisiana. Arctia was later
dismissed from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The state court action is currently pending, but only against
Shell, Shell Offshore, and SMS.
Plaintiff
filed the current action in federal court on July 20, 2015,
against Shell and Arctia. The complaint specifically premised
the court's jurisdiction on diversity jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1332. The complaint contained claims against
Shell and Arctia for negligence, negligence per se, and
unseaworthiness “under the general maritime law of the
United States.” On August 10, 2015, Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint that adds Shell Offshore and SMS as
defendants to the action.
Shell,
Shell Offshore, and Arctia subsequently filed a motion to
strike Plaintiff's request for a jury trial. They argued
that the addition of SMS to the action destroyed complete
diversity of the parties because both Plaintiff and SMS are
citizens of Louisiana. Without complete diversity, the only
basis for the court's subject matter jurisdiction is
based on admiralty pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1333, and
there is no right to a jury trial in admiralty cases. In
addition to opposing the motion on the merits, Plaintiff
indicated in his response that he intended to file a motion
to dismiss SMS without prejudice to remedy the complete
diversity problem. The court granted the motion to strike the
request for a jury trial. It concluded that because Plaintiff
had not yet dismissed SMS from the action, the only basis for
the court's jurisdiction was admiralty. Consequently,
under admiralty law, Plaintiff was not entitled to a jury
trial.
Plaintiff
now requests that the court dismiss SMS from the action
pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. SMS, however, did not file an opposition.
III.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Since
all the defendants have answered Plaintiff's complaint
and the parties have not filed a stipulation of dismissal,
Plaintiff's motion to dismiss SMS from this action is
governed by Rule 41(a)(2). Under Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal at
the plaintiff's request requires court
approval.[1] The court “should grant a motion for
voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant
can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a
result.”[2] Legal prejudice does not result merely
because a defendant will incur expenses in defending the
litigation or would be inconvenienced by a second lawsuit.
Legal prejudice does not result because the plaintiff would
gain a tactical advantage or because the dismissal would
cause uncertainty as to the resolution of the
case.[3] Rather, to establish legal prejudice, the
defendant must show “prejudice to some legal interest,
some legal claim, [or] some legal argument” or must
show that the burdens resulting from the dismissal are
extreme or unreasonable.[4]
IV.
DISCUSSION
Opposing
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's Rule 41(a)(2) request
should be denied for four reasons: (1) this court is the only
forum that has the necessary jurisdiction to adjudicate
Plaintiff's claims against all the parties allegedly
responsible for Plaintiff's accident; (2) Plaintiff has
engaged in procedural maneuvering; (3) SMS will remain a
party in this action as a result of the cross-claim that
Arctia asserted against it; and (4) SMS is a required party
under Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
court will address each of the four arguments in turn.
First,
the Opposing Defendants focus on the potential burdens
associated with concurrent litigation. They argue that this
court is the only forum that has the jurisdiction to
adjudicate claims against all the parties allegedly
responsible for Plaintiff's accident. They assert that
the concurrent litigation will waste time, money, and
judicial resources. However, the court's ruling on
Plaintiff's motion to dismiss SMS will not change the
fact that there will be concurrent litigation because a state
court case against Shell, Shell Offshore, and SMS is already
pending. Nonetheless, the Opposing Defendants do not want SMS
to be dismissed from Plaintiff's complaint because that
would foreclose the opportunity to litigate the case
against all potential tortfeasors in one forum. While courts
and parties prefer to avoid duplicative litigation when
possible, there is nothing inherently prejudicial or improper
about parallel litigation.[5] A plaintiff is free to simultaneously
pursue claims in federal and state court.[6] Furthermore, the
issue of whether the court's jurisdiction is proper and
convenient is a distinct and separate issue from voluntary
dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2).[7] The court also notes that SMS has
reserved the defenses of improper forum and lack of personal
jurisdiction in its answer to Plaintiff's complaint and
Arctia's counterclaim and did not file an opposition to
Plaintiff's request for dismissal of his claims against
it in federal court, which belies Opposing Defendants'
argument that this forum undisputedly is the preferred forum
for all Defendants.
Opposing
Defendants contend that concurrent litigation also raises the
possibility of inconsistent factual determinations. However,
as noted by the Ninth Circuit, uncertainty resulting from a
dispute remaining unresolved or uncertainty resulting from
future litigation is not adequate legal prejudice to warrant
denial of a Plaintiff's request to dismiss.[8] The Opposing
Defendants have ...