Summary
granting dismissal without prejudice on condition that plaintiff pay defendants' attorney fees
Summary of this case from Ohio Casualty Insurance Company v. ReedOpinion
Case No. 1:04-cv-0382-DFH-WTL.
December 1, 2004
ENTRY ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Plaintiff PetSmart, Inc. has moved to dismiss this action voluntarily. Plaintiff's motion cites Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which deals with involuntary dismissal; the court assumes plaintiff meant to refer to Rule 41(a)(2), which addresses voluntary dismissals subject to court review. Rule 41(a)(2) authorizes the court to exercise its discretion to impose terms and conditions on the voluntary dismissal.
Plaintiff filed this action on February 26, 2004 alleging that defendants Stacy Roesler and Jennifer Morgan were violating non-competition and confidentiality agreements and committing other commercial wrongs by leaving employment with PetSmart and setting up a competing dog grooming service in Muncie, Indiana. Plaintiff sought to invoke the court's diversity jurisdiction, but the court raised questions about whether the amount in controversy requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1332 could be satisfied. Those questions prompted plaintiff to explore possible settlement negotiations and possible refiling elsewhere. On August 10, 2004, the day before a scheduled pretrial conference with the magistrate judge, plaintiff filed its motion to dismiss voluntarily.
Defendants do not oppose dismissal, but they contend that the court should require plaintiff to pay their attorney fees incurred as a result of the filing of the action in this court. Such a condition is appropriate where the fee award compensates a defendant for expenses incurred that will not be useful in later litigation of the same claims in a different forum. LeBlang Motors, Ltd. v. Subaru of America, Inc., 148 F.3d 680, 685 (7th Cir. 1998); Marlow v. Winston Strawn, 19 F.3d 300, 303 (7th Cir. 1994); Cauley v. Wilson, 754 F.2d 769, 772 (7th Cir. 1985). Plaintiff argues that no conditions should be imposed because it moved to dismiss at an early stage and because defendants' efforts thus far would be useful in later litigation.
In the court's view, it is inevitable that some efforts, even at a preliminary stage, are specific to the particular forum, such as time devoted to complying with the court's case management efforts, consideration of jurisdictional issues, preparation of answers and counterclaims (which would have to be repeated in response to a different complaint), and the like. For that reason, a condition requiring payment of modest amounts of attorney fees is justified here. The amounts in question here are modest, and to avoid satellite litigation over the amounts, the court uses its judgment to estimate that each of the two individual defendants incurred $1,000 in attorney fees that will not be useful in later litigation of the same claims in another forum.
Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to dismiss this action voluntarily is therefore granted on the condition that plaintiff pay defendants Stacy Roesler and Jennifer Morgan $1,000 each, no later than December 16, 2004. Upon the filing of a notice that such payments have been made, the court will enter the order of dismissal without prejudice.
So ordered.