CURLEE BOWERS, APPELLANT,
v.
ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
An order granting a voluntary dismissal is generally not appealable by the plaintiff, even if conditional, unless the plaintiff demonstrates legal prejudice and lack of acquiescence.
Plaintiff sought voluntary dismissal of his action, which the district court granted but conditioned upon refiling only in Arkansas state or federal c…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Legal Prejudice cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-appellant Curlee Bowers appeals from an order of the district court1 conditioning the voluntary dismissal of his action upon the requirement that the suit, if refiled, be commenced in either the state or federal courts of Arkansas. See Fed.R. Civ.P. 41(a)(2). We dismiss the appeal.
As a general rule, no appeal by the moving plaintiff will lie from an order granting a voluntary dismissal. E.g., Management Investors v. United Mine Workers, 610 F. 2d 384, 393 (6th Cir. 1979); Yoffe v. Keller Industries, Inc., 580 F. 2d 126, 129 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 915, 99 S.Ct. 1231, 59 L.Ed.2d 464 (1979).
See generally 5 J. Moore Federal Practice ¶ 41.05 (2d ed. 1975).
In the case of conditional voluntary dismissal orders, however, an ex ception has been recognized where the plaintiff is legally prejudiced by the conditions accompanying the grant of dismissal and no acquiescence in those conditions has been evidenced on his part. LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F. 2d 601, 603-04 (5th Cir. 1976); see Yoffe v. Keller Industries, Inc., supra, 580 F. 2d at 130. Even assuming this exception to the general rule to be applicable in this circuit, Bowers has failed to satisfy the two prerequisites to appealability. The condition appended to the dismissal order did not “legally prejudice” Bowers; although restricting to a certain degree his right to refile this action, it does not “severely circumscribe” his ability to actually reinitiate the suit. Compare LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., supra, 528 F. 2d at 603-05; Yoffe v. Keller Industries, Inc., 580 F. 2d at 130-31. Cf. Scholl v. Felmont Oil Corp., 327 F. 2d 697, 700 (6th Cir. 1964) (dismissal conditioned in part upon requirement that suit, if refiled, be refiled in same court was not “unreasonable”).
Moreover, the record discloses no opposition to the condition by Bowers in the district court. Compare Yoffe, supra, 580 F. 2d at 130; LeCompte, supra, 528 F. 2d at 604. In these particular circumstances, we conclude that the order of dismissal is not appealable by Bowers.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. See 8th Cir.R. 12.
. The Honorable George Howard, Jr., United States District Judge for the Eastern and West-era Districts of Arkansas.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Antowyn Cauley v. Wilson, 754 F.2d 769 (7th Cir. 1985)
-
Seidman v. City OF Beverly Hills & Tom John Auto., Inc., 785 F.2d 1447 (9th Cir. 1986)
-
Parker v. Freightliner Corp. & Nat'l Seating Co., 940 F.2d 1019 (7th Cir. 1991)
Authorities Cited
- LeCOMPTE v. MR. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601 (5th Cir. 1976)
- Mgmt. Invs. & Norman C. Reid v. United Mine Workers OF Am., 610 F.2d 384 (6th Cir. 1979)
- Yoffe v. Keller Indus., Inc., 580 F.2d 126 (5th Cir. 1978)
- Scholl v. Felmont OIL Corp., 327 F.2d 697 (6th Cir. 1964)
- Altbaum v. California, 440 U.S. 915 (U.S. 1979)
- McMillon v. Roney, 440 U.S. 915 (U.S. 1979)