Seib v. ALF Back Office Services LLC, No. 3:2022cv01200 - Document 29 (N.D. Tex. 2023)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS Plaintiff Timothy Seib's motion to dismiss and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Seib's complaint. Each party shall bear its own costs. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 7/24/2023) (twd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Seib v. ALF Back Office Services LLC Doc. 29 Case 3:22-cv-01200-X Document 29 Filed 07/24/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 175 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION TIMOTHY LEWIS SEIB Plaintiff, v. ALF BACK OFFICE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant. § § § § § § § § § § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-1200-X MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiff Timothy Seib’s motion to dismiss his own complaint against Defendant ALF Back Office Services, LLC (“ALF”). [Doc. 21]. ALF does not oppose Seib’s motion to dismiss, but the parties disagree on whether the Court should dismiss Seib’s complaint with or without prejudice. After careful consideration, and for the reasons below, the Court GRANTS the motion and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE this case. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, unless the voluntary dismissal notice or a different stipulation “states otherwise, the dismissal is without prejudice.”1 The notice of dismissal “operates as an adjudication on the merits” when “the plaintiff previously dismissed any federal- or state-court action based on or including the same claim.”2 Before filing this suit in federal court, Seib sued ALF in 1 FED. R. CIV. PROC. 41(a)(1)(B). 2 Id. Dockets.Justia.com Case 3:22-cv-01200-X Document 29 Filed 07/24/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 176 Texas state court based on the same set of facts. The state court has not dismissed Seib’s case, so this order does not operate as a final adjudication under Rule 41.3 ALF claims that “it has already spent considerable time and money litigating [Seib’s] multiple claims in two different lawsuits asserting that he was unlawfully terminated from his employment.”4 Further, ALF “does not want to continue to have to spend money defending against the claims in the event [Seib] changes his position and the claims are re-filed.”5 ALF’s circumstance is neither unique nor unfair. Rule 41(a)(1)(B)—along with federal preclusion doctrine—provides adequate safeguards to protect ALF’s interests if Seib refiles these claims. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Seib’s motion to dismiss and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Seib’s complaint. Each party shall bear its own costs. IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of July, 2023. ___________________________________ BRANTLEY STARR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3 Even if the state court had dismissed Seib’s case, ALF has failed to demonstrate that Seib raised the same claims in his state-court case. Compare Doc. 23 at 4 (stating that Seib’s state-court case alleges breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty and requests a declaratory judgment); with Doc. 12 at 6–12 (alleging, in Seib’s live complaint, age and disability discrimination under federal and state law and retaliation under federal law). Because ALF hasn’t shown that the state and federal claims are duplicative, ALF’s contention that Seib abandoned some of those state-court claims does not trigger Rule 41 even if the Court viewed that abandonment as a voluntary dismissal. 4 Doc. 23 at 5. 5 Id.
]]>
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.
