Joseph Emmanuel Jarvis, et al. v. Assa Abloy Global Solutions Incorporated, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Arizona denies Plaintiffs’ motion to vacate their Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal and denies Defendants’ motion for sanctions. The Court concludes that none of the asserted Rule 60(b) grounds supports vacatur and declines to designate Plaintiffs as vexatious litigants or award attorneys’ fees. The Court admonishes Plaintiffs, maintains termination of the case, and orders that Defendants need not respond to future filings unless directed by the Court.

Holdings

1. Rule 60(b)(1) did not provide a basis to vacate the voluntary dismissal because plaintiffs did not argue that the dismissal resulted from mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect, and the record showed they understood the dismissal's self-executing effect.
2. Rule 60(b)(3) did not provide a basis to vacate the voluntary dismissal because plaintiffs did not show that their dismissal resulted from fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by defendants.
3. Rule 60(b)(4) did not provide a basis to vacate the voluntary dismissal because the dismissal was not a judgment rendered by the court, and plaintiffs identified no authority making their Rule 41(a) dismissal a legal nullity even if removal jurisdiction were lacking.
4. Rule 60(b)(6) did not provide a basis to vacate the voluntary dismissal because plaintiffs identified no extraordinary circumstances justifying relief.
5. The court declined to designate plaintiffs vexatious litigants because their conduct had not yet risen to the level of frivolousness or harassment required for such a restriction.
6. The court declined to award defendants attorney's fees, although it admonished plaintiffs for conduct bordering on bad faith.
7. Defendants were not required to respond to future filings by plaintiffs in the terminated case unless the court ordered them to respond.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) should be vacated under Rule 60(b)(1), (3), (4), or (6).
2. Whether the voluntary dismissal could be treated as void because the action was allegedly improperly removed and the federal court allegedly lacked removal jurisdiction.
3. Whether plaintiffs should be designated vexatious litigants or subjected to prefiling restrictions based on their litigation conduct.
4. Whether defendants were entitled to attorney's fees as a sanction under the court's inherent authority.
5. Whether defendants could be excused from responding to future filings in the terminated case unless ordered by the court.

Disposition

other