Amerijet International, Inc. v. Zero Gravity Corp.
785 F.3d 967
5th Cir.2015Background
- Amerijet and Zero Gravity had two related contracts: a Management Services Agreement and an Engine Lease; parties continued performance after initial terms expired and disputed possession/return of engines and maintenance records.
- Amerijet filed in Texas state court for immediate possession and obtained a temporary restraining order; Zero Gravity filed a verified responsive pleading in state court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Zero Gravity removed to federal court; Amerijet then filed a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of voluntary dismissal in the federal district court.
- The district court found Zero Gravity’s state-court filing constituted an answer, denied Amerijet’s unilateral dismissal, entered a settlement-based dismissal retaining jurisdiction, later reopened the case to enforce the settlement, and enjoined Amerijet from pursuing a later-filed Florida action.
- Amerijet sought mandamus and appealed the anti-suit injunction; the Fifth Circuit affirmed the injunction and denied mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant’s pre-removal state-court pleading can constitute an “answer” that defeats a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) unilateral dismissal | Amerijet: dismissal effective because no federal answer or summary-judgment motion had been filed before notice of dismissal | Zero Gravity: its verified state-court filing functioned as an answer under Texas law and thus precluded unilateral dismissal | Held: A state-law answer filed pre-removal suffices to preclude a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice; Zero Gravity’s filing qualified as an answer under Texas law, so Amerijet’s dismissal was ineffective |
| Whether the district court retained subject-matter jurisdiction to enforce the parties’ settlement after dismissing the case | Amerijet: court lacked jurisdiction because the dismissal didn’t incorporate settlement terms | Zero Gravity: Final Dismissal expressly retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement | Held: Retaining jurisdiction in the dismissal order was sufficient to provide federal jurisdiction to enforce the settlement (Kokkonen controlling) |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by enjoining Amerijet’s Florida suit under the first-to-file rule | Amerijet: Florida claims were not ripe/weren’t before the Texas court and forum clauses favored Florida | Zero Gravity: Texas was first-filed and the Florida suit substantially overlapped with Texas matters, risking piecemeal adjudication | Held: No abuse of discretion; Texas was first-filed and there was substantial overlap—injunction appropriate; Amerijet waived forum-clause argument |
| Whether mandamus relief vacating the reopening and injunction was warranted | Amerijet: mandamus required because district court lacked jurisdiction after dismissal | Zero Gravity: dismissal ineffective; normal appellate review available | Held: Mandamus denied because Amerijet’s Rule 41 argument fails on the merits and other remedies exist |
Key Cases Cited
- Qureshi v. United States, 600 F.3d 523 (5th Cir.) (describing effect of Rule 41 notice and loss of district-court jurisdiction)
- American Cyanamid Co. v. McGhee, 317 F.2d 295 (5th Cir.) (Rule 41 notice is self-effectuating and closes the file)
- Pilot Freight Carriers, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 506 F.2d 914 (5th Cir.) (only an answer or summary-judgment motion bars unilateral dismissal)
- Aero-Colours, Inc. v. Propst, 833 F.2d 51 (5th Cir.) (mechanical/objective application of Rule 41 to avoid case-by-case inquiry)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375 (U.S. 1994) (district court may retain ancillary jurisdiction to enforce settlement if dismissal order retains jurisdiction or incorporates settlement terms)
- Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Financial Corp., 121 F.3d 947 (5th Cir.) (first-to-file rule: first-filed court should decide whether later similar suits proceed)
- Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc., 174 F.3d 599 (5th Cir.) (first-to-file rule promotes comity and avoids piecemeal litigation)