McLaughlin v. Cheshire, 81-2216
| Decision Date | 30 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-2216,81-2216 |
| Citation | 676 F.2d 855 |
| Parties | Francis X. McLAUGHLIN, et al., Appellants, v. Maxine CHESHIRE. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (D.C. Civil Action No. 81-00779).
Francis L. McLaughlin, pro se, for appellants.
David E. Kendall, Washington, D. C., with whom Kevin T. Baine, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before WRIGHT, TAMM, and GINSBURG, Circuit Judges.
Opinion PER CURIAM.
This appeal requires us to address the limits on the District Court's discretion to require a plaintiff to pay a defendant's reasonable expenses when the plaintiff seeks voluntary dismissal of one action to pursue related claims in another forum.
On April 1, 1981 appellants amended their complaint in a Maryland state court action to include appellee as a defendant; on April 2, 1981 appellants filed actions against appellee in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and against appellee's former employer, The Washington Post, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. All three actions apparently involve similar-if not identical-factual contentions and claims for relief.
On June 2, 1981, after appellee had filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, appellants sought voluntary dismissal of their District of Columbia action, stating their intention to pursue their claims against appellee in the state court action in Maryland. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), the District Court required appellants to pay appellee's reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in this action, as a condition on granting a dismissal without prejudice. Appellee submitted a statement of costs and legal fees, which the District Court approved in full, except for reducing the lawyers' hourly rate. Appellants requested but were denied a full evidentiary hearing. On July 28, 1981 the District Court granted appellants' motion to dismiss without prejudice subject to payment by them to appellee of $4,032.35. Payment was not forthcoming, and on October 20, 1981 the District Court granted appellee's motion to dismiss with prejudice. This appeal followed.
The District Court has broad discretion to impose conditions on granting plaintiffs' motions for voluntary dismissal without prejudice after the adverse party has filed a motion for summary judgment. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). But that discretion is limited to imposing conditions that will alleviate harm (other than tactical disadvantage) that the defendant will suffer if the motion is granted. LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601, 604-605 (5th Cir. 1976).
It is common for courts to require plaintiffs to pay their opponents' reasonable legal fees and costs as a condition of dismissal under Rule 41(a) (2). However where a plaintiff seeks voluntary dismissal in one forum to pursue pending litigation against the defendant in another forum, the defendant is not entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred in preparing work product that has been or will be useful in the continuing litigation. GAF Corp. v. Transamerica Insurance Co., 665 F.2d 364, 369 (D.C.Cir.1981). Defendants do not suffer harm from having to pay the full cost of defending an action in a proper forum, and plaintiffs should not be forced to pay for work that is being or will be used against them...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Noxell Corp. v. Firehouse No. 1 Bar-B-Que Restaurant, BAR-B-QUE
...proceedings yielded work product that would be useful in ongoing litigation elsewhere. Id. at 369; see also McLaughlin v. Cheshire, 676 F.2d 855, 857 (D.C.Cir.1982) (per curiam). Noxell has not informed us of any renewal of the infringement charge against Firehouse. Moreover, even if Noxell......
-
American Water Development, Inc. v. City of Alamosa, s. 92SA141
...fees for work product which could be useful in defending same claim in state court where claim was being pursued); McLaughlin v. Cheshire, 676 F.2d 855, 856-57 (D.C.Cir.1982) (no entitlement to reimbursement for expenses in preparing work product that will be useful in continuing litigation......
-
Rohr v. Rohr
...and Procedure: Civil, § 2366, p. 180 (1971), and the trial court has broad discretion in conditioning a dismissal. McLaughlin v. Cheshire, 676 F.2d 855 (D.C.Cir.1982); Blackburn v. Ohio, 60 F.R.D. 197 (S.D.Ohio 1973). It does not appear to us that the magistrate abused his discretion by not......
-
Tagupa v. Vipdesk
...should only be awarded attorney fees for work which cannot be used in any future litigation of these claims"); McLaughlin v. Cheshire, 676 F.2d 855, 856–57 (D.C.Cir.1982) ( "[W]here a plaintiff seeks voluntary dismissal in one forum to pursue pending litigation against the defendant in anot......
-
Tribute to Ruth Bader Ginsburg: The editors of the Case Western Reserve Law Review respectfully dedicate this issue to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
...(18.) Int'l Ass'n of Machinists v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 678 F.2d 1092 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (en banc). (19.) McLaughlin v. Cheshire, 676 F.2d 855 (D.C. Cir. (20.) Jonathan L. Entin, Privacy, Emotional Distress, and the Limits of Libel Law Reform, 38 Mercer L. REV. 835, 835 & n.1 (1987). (21......