Opinion
6:23-CV-00134-ADA-JCM
07-29-2024
JOANNA SANTIAGO, Plaintiff, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, et al, Defendants.
TO: THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JEFFREY C. MANSKE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), and Rules 1(f) and 4(b) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. Before the Court are Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss Defendants Hyster-Yale Group, Inc. d/b/a Hyster Company and Briggs Industrial Solutions, Inc. d/b/a Briggs Equipment (ECF No. 60), and the attendant responses and reply thereto. For the following reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS Plaintiff's Motion be GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff currently sues Defendants Hyster Company, Briggs Equipment, and Amazon for injuries she allegedly sustained during a workplace accident. Pl.'s 2d Am. Compl. at 6-7 (ECF No. 54). Plaintiff alleges that she was a transportation worker operating a forklift for Amazon. Id. at 4. She further alleges that Amazon hired Briggs Equipment to perform onsite equipment servicing of that forklift which was designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by Hyster Company. Id. at 6.
In her live Complaint, she sues Amazon for negligence, negligent undertaking, premises liability, and gross negligence. Id. at 7-13. Plaintiff asserts all of these claims under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act. Id. at 12. Plaintiff sues Briggs Equipment for negligence, negligent undertaking, and gross negligence. Id. at 13-14. Finally, she sues Hyster for strict liability for design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, negligent undertaking, and gross negligence. Id. at 15-20.
II. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff moves to dismiss Defendants Briggs Equipment and Hyster. Plaintiff “no longer wishes to pursue her claims” against Briggs Equipment and Hyster. Pl.'s Mot. at ¶ 10. Plaintiff claims she has obtained facts during discovery regarding the cause of the incident which are the basis of her desire to dismiss her claims against Briggs Equipment and Hyster. Id. at ¶ 13. Briggs Equipment and Hyster support Plaintiff's Motion. Briggs Equipment's Resp. (ECF No. 65); Hyster Resp. (ECF No. 64).
The basic purpose of Rule 41(a)(2) is to permit the plaintiff, with court approval, to voluntarily dismiss an action so long as another party will not be prejudiced. LeCompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601, 604 (5th Cir. 1976). Courts are permitted to attach conditions to granting a Rule 41(a)(2) motion to dismiss to prevent defendants “from being unfairly affected by such dismissal.” Id. (citations omitted).
Amazon opposes Plaintiff's Motion. Amazon argues that should the Court grant this Motion, it would suffer prejudice because Amazon would not be able to apportion any potential liability at trial to Briggs Equipment or Hyster. Amazon Resp. at 6-7 (ECF No. 63). Amazon contends that granting the Motion is particularly prejudicial because the deadline to file counterclaims and designate responsible third parties has expired. Id. at 7.
There is some dispute as to whether Amazon can designate responsible third parties in this claim. See Briggs Equipment Resp.; see also Hyster Resp. Those arguments are, as Plaintiff points out, for another day if Amazon files a motion to designate responsible third parties. In order to prevent potential prejudice to Amazon, however, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 60) be GRANTED and the deadline to designate responsible third parties be extended until September 13, 2024. The Court further RECOMMENDS that Defendants Briggs Equipment and Hyster be DISMISSED.
III. OBJECTIONS
The parties may wish to file objections to this Report and Recommendation. Parties filing objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which they object. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
A party's failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations in the Report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-53 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc). Except upon grounds of plain error, failing to object shall further bar the party from appellate review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150-53; Douglass, 79 F.3d at 1415.