Gulf Coast Bank and Trust Company v. Designed Conveyor Systems LLC, No. 2:2016cv06644 - Document 19 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER & REASONS denying 12 Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 7/22/2016. (mmm)

Download PDF
Gulf Coast Bank and Trust Company v. Designed Conveyor Systems LLC Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA GULF COAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO: 16-6644 DESIGNED CONVEYOR SYSTEMS, LLC SECTION: R ORD ER AN D REASON S Defendant Designed Conveyor System s, LLC m oves the Court for attorney fees and costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d). For the following reasons, the Court denies the m otion. I. BACKGROU N D Before this lawsuit was voluntarily dism issed, plaintiff Gulf Coast Bank and Trust Com pany sought to collect am ounts allegedly due under an invoice from defendant Designed Conveyor System s, LLC ("DCS"). Gulf Coast filed this lawsuit in Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans on April 6, 20 16.1 DCS rem oved the action to this Court and m oved to dism iss Gulf Coast's com plaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3), and 1 R. Doc. 1-1. Dockets.Justia.com 12(b)(6).2 Instead of filing a response to DCS's m otion, Gulf Coast voluntarily dism issed this lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) on J une 2.3 Gulf Coast then filed another com plaint against DCS in the 19th J udicial District Court for the Parish of East Baton Rouge.4 DCS now m oves the Court to award attorney fees and costs under Rule 41(d).5 In support, DCS argues that Gulf Coast voluntarily dism issed this lawsuit and then reasserted nearly identical claim s in a second com plaint in a different court. Gulf Coast opposes the m otion, arguing (1) that this Court is powerless to award attorney fees and costs in light of Gulf Coast's voluntary dism issal of this lawsuit, and (2) that even if the Court could award attorney fees and costs, the circum stances of this case do not warrant Rule 41(d) relief.6 2 R. Doc. 10 . In the alternative, DCS asked the Court to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. 3 R. Doc. 11. 4 R. Doc. 12-2 at 1. 5 R. Doc. 13. That rule provides that a plaintiff m ay dism iss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dism issal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a m otion for sum m ary judgm ent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). 6 R. Doc. 12. Gulf Coast also argues that Rule 41(d) awards are lim ited to costs and m ay not include attorney fees. Because the Court finds that Rule 41(d) relief is not warranted under the circum stances of this case, it does not reach this issue. 2 II. D ISCU SSION DCS asserts that it is entitled to attorney fees and costs associated with its defense of the now-dism issed action before this Court under Rule 41(d). That rule provides: If a plaintiff who previously dism issed an action in any court files an action based on or including the sam e claim against the sam e defendant, the court: (1) m ay order the plaintiff to pay all or part of the costs of that previous action; and (2) m ay stay the proceedings until the plaintiff has com plied. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(d). To begin, Gulf Coast's contention that the Court is powerless to grant Rule 41(d) relief lacks m erit. Although a voluntary dism issal divests the court of jurisdiction to decide the m erits of the action, "[i]t is well established that a federal court m ay consider collateral issues after an action is no longer pending." Cooter & Gell v. Hartm arx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 395 (1990 ). As the Suprem e Court has held, perm issible collateral issues include, am ong other things, "the im position of costs, attorn ey's fees, and contem pt sanctions, [and] the im position of a Rule 11 sanction." Id. at 396; see also Qureshi v. United States, 60 0 F.3d 523, 525 (5th Cir. 20 10 ) (expanding the Cooter & Gell list to include pre-filing injunctions). Thus, the Court's jurisdiction to consider DCS's m otion for attorney fees and costs under Rule 41(d) survives Gulf Coast's voluntary dism issal. See Brow n v. Cabell Fin. Corp., No. 5:0 5CV 962, 3 20 10 WL 1486486, at *1 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 13, 20 10 ) (finding that court had authority to im pose Rule 41(d) sanctions after the case before it was voluntarily dism issed); United Rentals (N. Am .), Inc. v. Nardi, No. CIV. 30 2CV995 PCD, 20 0 2 WL 32173531, at *1 (D. Conn. Sept. 24, 20 0 2) (sam e). Nonetheless, the Court finds that Rule 41(d) relief is not warranted under the circum stances of this case. The decision to im pose costs under Rule 41(d) is within the broad discretion of the trial court. See Meredith v. Stovall, 216 F.3d 10 87 (10 th Cir. 20 0 0 ); Esquivel v. Arau, 913 F. Supp. 1382, 1386 (C.D. Cal. 1996). "The purpose of the rule is to prevent the m aintenance of vexatious lawsuits and to secure, where such suits are shown to have been brought repetitively, paym ent of costs of prior instances of such vexatious conduct." United Transp. Union v. Maine Central R.R. Co., 10 7 F.R.D. 391, 392 (D. Me. 1985). A court m ay refuse to im pose costs on the plaintiff if it appears that there was good reason for the dism issal of the prior action. G.C. & K.B. Investm ents, Inc. v. Fisk, No. CIV.A. 0 1-1256, 20 0 2 WL 27772, at *7 (E.D. La. J an. 8, 20 0 2) (citing 9 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure ยง 2375 (2d ed. 1987). Here, Gulf Coast voluntarily dism issed this lawsuit after DCS filed a Rule 12 m otion challenging, am ong other things, whether this Court was a proper venue for the litigation. Gulf Coast then filed a second com plaint against DCS 4 in the Nineteenth J udicial District Court for the Parish of Baton Rouge, which, Gulf Coast argues, is the parish of proper venue under the applicable articles of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure.7 Although DCS disputes whether Gulf Coast's filing actually solved the venue defect, the m erits of this issue have not been briefed by the parties and are not properly before this Court. Because Gulf Coast re-filed this lawsuit in an attem pt to correct an issue identified in DCS's Rule 12 m otion, the Court finds that Gulf Coast had good reason to dism iss the first com plaint. See United Rentals, 20 0 2 WL 32173531, at *1 (denying Rule 41(d) m otion when plaintiffs dism issed the first action in an "attem pt to address personal jurisdiction defects" as to certain defendants). Thus, DCS's m otion for attorney fees and costs under Rule 41(d) is denied. 7 R. Doc. 13 at 5. 5 III. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES defendant's m otion for attorney fees and costs. New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of J uly, 20 16. ___ _______________________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 6

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.