Scarlett Goodwin v. Dewight Reynolds
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12839
11th Cir.2014Background
- Plaintiff Goodwin sued Reynolds, Fikes Truck Line, LLC, and Precoat Metals in Alabama state court for injuries from a tractor-trailer collision.
- Reynolds (forum state Alabama) was a party; Fikes (Arkansas) and Precoat (Delaware/Missouri) were non-forum defendants; complete diversity existed aside from Reynolds.
- Plaintiff served process on all three defendants, but removal to federal court occurred January 4, 2012, three business days after filing and before any service on defendants.
- Precoat answered the same day, preventing dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i); Plaintiff moved to remand or dismiss without prejudice so she could refile to trigger forum-defendant rule.
- District court denied remand but granted dismissal without prejudice; defendants appealed, arguing abuse of discretion and improper circumvention of removal rights.
- This Court addresses whether dismissal without prejudice was proper and whether forum-defendant rule precluded second removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion granting Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal | Dismissal serves justice and prevents improper forum manipulation. | Dismissal primarily serves plaintiff convenience and harms defendants by losing federal forum. | No abuse of discretion; dismissal appropriate under equities. |
| Whether Thatcher and American National Bank conflict with forum-defendant rule application | Cases show removal rights may be substantial; dismissal to preclude removal is improper. | Those cases show removal rights may be constrained; here it was a technical preclusion not a substance shift. | Distinguishable; not controlling; not abuse of discretion. |
| Whether removal was improper due to forum defendant not being served at removal | Forum defendant unserved; removal should be barred by forum-defendant rule. | Removal occurred pre-service exploiting procedural timing; not barred by rule. | Forum-defendant rule concerns are acknowledged but policy allows undoing gamesmanship via Rule 41(a)(2). |
| Whether the district court correctly balanced policy against gamesmanship | Plaintiff acted in good faith; removal strategy was tactical behavior by defendants. | Defendants right to a federal forum is substantial; dismissal undermines that right. | No clear legal prejudice; dismissal did not undermine substantive removal rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pontenberg v. Boston Scientific Corp., 252 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2001) (broad Rule 41(a)(2) discretion; weigh equities)
- McCants v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 781 F.2d 855 (11th Cir. 1986) (justice and equities in voluntary dismissal)
- Thatcher v. Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., 659 F.3d 1212 (8th Cir. 2011) (forum-shopping concerns; substantial removal rights discussed)
- American National Bank & Trust Co. of Sapulpa v. Bic Corp., 931 F.2d 1411 (10th Cir. 1991) (unconditional dismissal allowed; refiling in federal court not required)
- North v. Precision Airmotive Corp., 600 F. Supp. 2d 1263 (M.D. Fla. 2009) (debate on proper application of forum-defendant rule)
- Thermtron Prods., Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U.S. 336 (1976) (caution against sua sponte dismissal not grounded in statute)
- St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (removal rights and standards cited in context)
- Sullivan v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., 575 F. Supp. 2d 640 (D.N.J. 2008) (legislative history interpreting 'properly joined and served')