JULIE A. ROBINSON, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff National Interstate Insurance Company's ("NIIC") Motion to Dismiss Claims Against Corporate Claims Service, Inc. Without Prejudice (Doc. 94). Defendant Corporate Claim Service, Inc. ("CCS") objects to any dismissal without prejudice, arguing that it will suffer legal prejudice as a result of any such dismissal.
NIIC brought this declaratory judgment action against Foust Fleet Services, LLC ("Foust"), Tempa White, and Brandy Burda.
NIIC has settled its claims against Foust, White, and Burda, as well as Foust's counterclaims against NIIC, and those claims have been dismissed.
Rule 41(a)(2) controls voluntary dismissals and provides, "an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper. . . . Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice." "[A]bsent `legal prejudice' to the defendant, the district court normally should grant such a dismissal."
Defendant asserts three primary grounds for legal prejudice: (1) CCS is defending claims brought by Foust in this action, and if NIIC's claims are dismissed and then refiled, CCS will be forced to defend itself twice based on the same underlying facts; (2) this Court is familiar with the issues and any motion for summary judgment should be ruled on by this Court; and (3) CCS has already incurred significant efforts and expense, including three depositions, interviewing fact witnesses, and reviewing discovery. NIIC asserts that no legal prejudice exists based on these contentions, and further, NIIC stipulates that "should there be further litigation between CCS and [NIIC], all discovery exchanged among the parties in this action may be used in such later action, subject to the restrictions now in place on such material."
As an initial matter, between the filing of CCS's Response and this Order, Foust has dismissed all of its claims in this action, including its claims against CCS, with prejudice.
The Court is similarly unpersuaded by CCS's contention that it is entitled to a summary judgment ruling by this Court. The discovery deadline is August 30, 2019, the dispositive motion deadline is October 1, 2019, and no dispositive motions have been filed. As discussed above, "[p]rejudice does not arise simply because a second action has been or may be filed against the defendant."
Finally, the Court finds that NIIC's stipulation that CCS may utilize the discovery exchanged in this case in a future lawsuit sufficiently mitigates any duplicative efforts or expense that CCS may incur in the event of a second lawsuit by NIIC. The limited discovery that has been conducted will not be duplicative of any future discovery in another suit.
Under the Tenth Circuit's factors discussed above, the Court finds that dismissal without prejudice is warranted. NIIC's stipulation regarding discovery sufficiently accounts for the expense and effort expended by CCS, and there is no evidence of any delay or lack of diligence in pursuing this dismissal on behalf of NIIC.