|
|
|
The Court Cannot Reconsider a Voluntary Dismissal
(January 2012) By Gregory L. Arbogast, Associate
For more information, contact Paul
Farquharson.
Omega US Ins., Inc. v. Penn. Nat’l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co.,
Case No. ELH-11-2297 (D. Md. January 13, 2012) |
View pdf
While the Court’s memorandum in Omega US Ins., Inc. merely
arises out of a status conference, it addressed an important issue that was
apparently misunderstood by the parties. When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses
a defendant before the defendant has answered, the defendant is automatically
dismissed, irrespective of the Court’s approval. Apparently, this tenet is often
forgotten because the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland has
engaged in the practice of approving the dismissal or of “marginally approving
the dismissal.” The Court’s approval, however, is merely ministerial and it does
not actually serve a substantive function. In Omega, Judge Hollander needed to
remind the parties of this important rule.
Omega US Ins., Inc. is a declaratory judgment action in
which Omega US Insurance, Inc. (“Omega”) sought to disclaim coverage for its
insured, RN’G Construction, Inc. (RN’G). Omega also sued Pennsylvania National
Mutual Casualty Insurance Company (“Penn National”), Timothy W. Whalen, Evonne
J. Whalen, Joyce M. Lookabaugh, and Con-Way Truckload (“Con-Way”) as necessary
parties. RN’G sought coverage for an accident involving one of its trucks. The
United States District Court for the District of Maryland acquired jurisdiction
over the case based on diversity.
Omega subsequently amended its Complaint to name two
(2) additional Defendants: the Maryland State Highway Administration (“SHA”)
and Long Fence Company Inc. (“Long Fence”). Significantly, the Court raised
the issue of whether SHA was in fact part of the State of Maryland, or an
alter-ego of the State of Maryland. This is significant, because ordinarily
a state is not a citizen for diversity purposes. If the agency is an
alter-ego of the state, however, then the agency will be considered a
citizen of the state for diversity purposes. If SHA were considered a
citizen of Maryland, it would destroy diversity.
To avoid this potential jurisdictional issue, Omega
voluntarily dismissed SHA before SHA answered the Amended Complaint. The
United States District Court issued a ruling in which it marginally approved
the dismissal. Defendants, however, asked that Judge Hollander reconsider
her decision approving the dismissal in light of the jurisdictional issues
presented by adding SHA as a party. Judge Hollander, however, issued this
opinion to remind the parties that she approved the dismissal by margin
Order as a ministerial function to assist the clerk’s office in dismissing
SHA as a party. She stressed that her decision had no real or legal effect
on the dismissal. Instead, the rules permit Omega to voluntarily dismiss SHA
before SHA answers without leave of court. Therefore, she could not
reconsider her decision to dismiss SHA.
|
|
|