Thatcher v. Hanover Insurance Group, Inc.
659 F.3d 1212
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Thatcher filed a putative class action in Arkansas against Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. and Massachusetts Bay Insurance Co. alleging unjust enrichment, fraud, constructive fraud, and breach of contract.
- Defendants removed the case to federal district court under CAFA (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)).
- Thatcher moved for voluntary dismissal without prejudice so he could refile as a breach-of-contract action in state court to avoid federal jurisdiction; the district court granted dismissal.
- Defendants appealed, contending the district court should have considered whether the dismissal was an improper forum-shopping measure.
- The Eighth Circuit held the district court abused its discretion by not addressing forum-shopping and subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded for consideration consistent with this opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the district court required to consider forum-shopping before dismissing? | Thatcher sought state-forum relief, implying forum-shopping to defeat CAFA. | Court must assess whether dismissal was a forum-shopping device. | Yes; abuse; remand for jurisdictional analysis. |
| Should subject-matter jurisdiction be addressed before evaluating dismissal shortcuts? | Not stated separately; focus on preserving class claims. | Jurisdictional question should be addressed prior to or alongside dismissal analysis. | Yes; district court abused by not addressing jurisdiction and remand is required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hamm v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharm., Inc., 187 F.3d 941 (8th Cir. 1999) (factors for Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal abuse of discretion)
- Cahalan v. Rohan, 423 F.3d 815 (8th Cir. 2005) (forum-shopping concerns in voluntary dismissal)
- Knudson v. Sys. Painters, Inc., 634 F.3d 968 (8th Cir. 2011) (removal and forum considerations in CAFA context)
- St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (1938) (must preserve jurisdictional rights; not permit shield by later amendment)
- Jones v. Mosher, 107 F. 561 (8th Cir.1901) (reminds courts to safeguard removal rights)
- Kern v. TXO Prod. Corp., 738 F.2d 968 (8th Cir. 1984) (three-part framework for abuse-of-discretion review)
- Crawford v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd., 267 F.3d 760 (8th Cir. 2001) (standard for abuse of discretion in dismissal decisions)