George Donner v. Alcoa, Inc.
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 4552
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Donner sued Alcoa in Missouri state court for claims including strict liability and negligent design/warnings related to aluminum exposure.
- Alcoa removed the case to federal court based on diversity of citizenship and corporate domicile.
- Donner moved to voluntarily dismiss, intending to refile in state court to join Western Forms, which would destroy complete diversity.
- The district court granted the voluntary dismissal without addressing whether Donner’s proposed claims against Western Forms had a reasonable legal basis.
- Donner’s expert-disclosure deadline and some claims had already progressed, with no medical expert evidence disclosed to support causation.
- The court relied on Missouri election of remedies doctrine, but the panel held the district court abused its discretion by not evaluating the proposed claims against Western Forms for fraudulent joinder purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting voluntary dismissal without considering fraudulent-joinder implications | Donner argues dismissal was proper only if Western Forms has viable claims. | Alcoa contends dismissal was for forum shopping and merits were irrelevant under Rule 41(a)(2). | Yes, the district court abused its discretion by not assessing Western Forms’ viability. |
| Whether election of remedies bars any claim against Western Forms | Donner contends election doesn’t apply absent final settlement; claims may be viable against Western Forms. | Alcoa asserts election of remedies precludes tort claims after workers’ compensation benefits. | Yes, the election of remedies doctrine applies, precluding the Western Forms claims. |
| Whether the court should evaluate the proposed claims against Western Forms to determine purpose of dismissal | Donner asserts merits against Western Forms may reveal improper motive for forum manipulation. | Alcoa argues merits are irrelevant to voluntary dismissal. | Yes, the district court must evaluate the proposed claims’ merit to assess improper motive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thatcher v. Hanover Ins. Grp., Inc., 659 F.3d 1212 (8th Cir. 2011) (factors for abuse of discretion in voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2))
- Hamm v. Rhone–Poulenc Rorer Pharm., Inc., 187 F.3d 941 (8th Cir. 1999) (proper purposes for dismissal; forum considerations)
- Knudson v. Sys. Painters, Inc., 634 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 2011) (fraudulent-joinder standard for diversity-destroying defendant)
- Neff v. Baiotto Coal Co., 234 S.W.2d 578 (Mo. 1950) (receipt of workers' compensation triggers election of remedies)
- Ballinger v. Gascosage Elec. Corp., 788 S.W.2d 506 (Mo. 1990) (election of remedies doctrine precludes inconsistent tort action)
- Alexander v. Link's Landing, Inc., 814 S.W.2d 614 (Mo. Ct. App. 1991) (election of remedies where party gains benefit and loses right)
- Grote Meat Co. v. Goldenberg, 735 S.W.2d 379 (Mo. Ct. App. 1987) (election of remedies doctrine applies when plaintiff gains, defendant loses)