Stephan Bechuck v. Home Depot USA, Incorporated, e, 814 F.3d 287

In July 2014 Bechuck was injured by a defective chair at a Home Depot; he sued Home Depot and the store manager in state court; Home Depot removed to federal court.
Bechuck amended to add Sales Managers Inc. (SMI), then replaced SMI with Advantage Sales & Marketing, LLC (ASM) after learning ASM was the distributor; ASM had been served but had not yet answered.
At a February 2 pretrial conference (ASM counsel absent), the district court sua sponte announced it would dismiss Home Depot and soon issued an order dismissing Home Depot with prejudice.
Later the same day Bechuck filed a Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice voluntarily dismissing ASM (no answer or summary-judgment motion had been filed). The court then issued a “Final Dismissal” dismissing ASM and Home Depot without prejudice but imposing a condition that any refiling against ASM be in that court; a later “Corrected Final Dismissal” extended the same refiling restriction to Home Depot.
Bechuck appealed, arguing the district court lacked jurisdiction to attach a refiling restriction to his Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal of ASM and that dismissal and the refiling restriction as to Home Depot were improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court could impose a refiling restriction on Bechuck’s Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal of ASM	Bechuck: Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) is self-executing; once he filed the notice, the case terminated and the court lacked power to attach conditions	ASM: Court retained inherent supervisory authority to prevent forum-shopping and could impose pre-filing or refiling conditions	Court: Vacated the refiling restriction as to ASM — Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal is self-effectuating and the court lacked jurisdiction to attach the condition (no history of abuse to justify collateral sanctions)
Whether the district court properly dismissed Home Depot and could condition dismissal on refiling in the same court	Bechuck: The sua sponte dismissal and the refiling restriction were improper; he never requested dismissal of Home Depot	Home Depot: Responded it would not oppose amending dismissal from with prejudice to without prejudice and did not defend the refiling restriction	Court: The dismissal of Home Depot was erroneous if treated as sua sponte, but harmless because it was without prejudice; however the imposition of the refiling restriction was an abuse of discretion and was removed

In re Amerijet Int’l, Inc., 785 F.3d 967 (5th Cir.) (Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal is self-executing; court may not attach conditions)
Am. Cyanamid Co. v. McGhee, 317 F.2d 295 (5th Cir. 1963) (notice of dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) closes the file; plaintiff’s right to dismiss is absolute prior to answer)
Williams v. Ezell, 531 F.2d 1261 (5th Cir. 1976) (court has no power to deny or attach conditions to a plaintiff’s Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal)
Qureshi v. United States, 600 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 2010) (district court retains some supervisory powers post-dismissal for collateral matters like sanctions and pre-filing injunctions)
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 (U.S. 1990) (collateral proceedings that address abuse of the judicial process may continue after the underlying action ends)
LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601 (5th Cir. 1976) (conditions attached to Rule 41(a)(2) dismissals that severely circumscribe refiling can cause legal prejudice and be appealable)
Yesh Music v. Lakewood Church, 727 F.3d 356 (5th Cir. 2013) (Rule 41(a)(1) dismissal returns plaintiff to the legal position as if the suit had never been brought)
Versa Prods., Inc. v. Home Depot, USA, Inc., 387 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2004) (upholding a refiling condition in the narrow context where a forum non conveniens transfer had already been ordered and the condition preserved that transfer)