Justices to think about skill to resume lawsuit after voluntary dismissal

CASE PREVIEW

The court docket will hear Waetzig v. Halliburton Power Companies on Tuesday. (Katie Barlow)

Subsequent week, after they return from their lengthy vacation break, the justices can have, amongst different thrilling issues, a dispute concerning the skill of a claimant to resume a lawsuit years after voluntarily dismissing it. The precise authorized query, posed in Waetzig v. Halliburton Power Companies, is whether or not a voluntary dismissal (permitted underneath Federal Rule of Civil Process 41(a)) is the sort of “last judgment, order, or continuing” {that a} federal trial court docket can revisit underneath Federal Rule of Civil Process 60(b), which in restricted circumstances permits trial courts to reopen last judgments.

To grasp why this query might matter, contemplate Gary Waetzig’s predicament. Previously employed by Halliburton, Waetzig filed go well with alleging age discrimination. When Halliburton identified that he had agreed to arbitrate such disputes, he voluntarily dismissed his go well with underneath Rule 41. Underneath the rule, Waetzig was entitled to do this just by sending discover, which introduced the case to an finish. The arbitration went ahead, and when Waetzig misplaced in that venue, he returned to the federal trial court docket the place he began to problem the arbitration award.

The issue Waetzig confronted was that by the point the arbitration continuing was over, the statute of limitations for the alleged age discrimination had expired – so Waetzig couldn’t refile his authentic age discrimination lawsuit. And he couldn’t file a lawsuit difficult the outcomes of the arbitration straight, as a result of the Supreme Court docket had not too long ago held that federal courts don’t have free-standing jurisdiction over a go well with difficult an arbitration award.

So Waetzig as a substitute requested the court docket underneath Rule 60(b) to grant aid from the earlier order dismissing the case, on the premise that he as soon as once more had a motive to be in court docket. Though the district court docket refused to grant aid, the U.S. Court docket of Appeals for the tenth Circuit did. The Supreme Court docket agreed to evaluation the case, apparently due to perceived variations in decrease courts’ remedy of the issue.

Waetzig tries to current his place as a plain-language strategy to the language of the 2 guidelines (41 and 60(b)), however I significantly doubt the justices will see it that method. First, he argues that the dismissal of his go well with was “last” as a result of it terminated his authentic continuing. The issue with that argument, as Halliburton factors out, is that the dismissal was “with out prejudice,” that means that the court docket left Waetzig free to refile his go well with at any time. A dismissal that leaves the claimant free to return shouldn’t be clearly a “last” disposition of the matter.

Second, Waetzig additionally wants to steer the justices that the trial court docket’s authentic dismissal is a “continuing” for functions of Rule 60(b), which permits courts to revisit any last “judgment, order or continuing.” The issue with that place, Halliburton emphasizes, is that underneath the related clause of Rule 41 the trial court docket didn’t do something – the case was dismissed solely based mostly on the discover Waetzig despatched asking for a voluntary dismissal with out prejudice. It’s straightforward to see the justices rejecting Waetzig’s argument on that time as effectively.

Lastly, except for the differing positions concerning the language of the related guidelines, Halliburton leads with a jurisdictional argument – contending that the trial court docket was not simply mistaken to grant aid underneath Rule 60(b), however actually wholly lacks the authority to listen to the case. The important thing level right here is that the aid Waetzig seeks shouldn’t be what he sought within the preliminary grievance – aid for age discrimination – however somewhat rejection of the arbitration award. Halliburton contends that the district court docket’s jurisdiction underneath Rule 60(b) is restricted to the jurisdictional basis of the unique grievance, which might not prolong to the aid that Waetzig seeks now.

My guess is that the justices will probably be annoyed that Halliburton leads with a jurisdictional level that was not raised under and even when the justices determined to take the case. And I think it can eat a good quantity of the argument. I predict a vigorous interchange involving Justices Elena Kagan (the previous federal courts professor) and Sonia Sotomayor (the previous trial decide). Maybe a step down in depth from Friday’s arguments about TikTok.