Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02866/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02866-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Product Liability

---

1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

HENRY A. ERICKSON and KRISTIN 

A. ERICKSON, 

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

CATERPILLAR, INC., 

 Defendant. /

No. Cr. S-06-2866 RRB GGH 

Memorandum of Opinion

and Order

Plaintiffs Henry and Kristin Erickson (“the Ericksons”) 

allege that Henry was injured while operating a machine 

manufactured by defendant Caterpillar, Inc. The Ericksons filed 

a state complaint and Caterpillar filed a notice of removal, 

based on diversity of citizenship. After filing the state 

complaint, the Ericksons determined that a corporation of nondiverse citizenship should be added to the action. Since 

addition of the defendant would eliminate this court’s 

jurisdiction, the Ericksons seek voluntary dismissal without 

prejudice. Caterpillar does not oppose dismissal but seeks 

Case 2:06-cv-02866-RRB-GGH Document 20 Filed 07/02/07 Page 1 of 4
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

costs and fees for work regarding removal. For the following 

reasons, the court GRANTS the motion to dismiss and AWARDS 

Caterpillar costs and fees. 

I. 

 On November 9, 2006 the Ericksons filed a state product 

liability action naming Caterpillar as the sole defendant. 

Caterpillar manufactured a scraper that Henry Erickson was 

operating when an alleged cushion hitch failure caused him to be 

violently thrown around the cab. On December 19, 2006, 

Caterpillar filed a notice of removal based on diversity of 

citizenship. The Ericksons are California citizens and 

Caterpillar is a Delaware corporation with its principle place 

of business in Illinois. After filing the state suit, the 

Ericksons discussed the accident with attorneys for Henry’s 

employer, Teichert & Sons, Inc. (“Teichert”). During this 

discussion, the Ericksons learned that Holt Cat Service, Inc. 

(“Holt”), a California corporation, had serviced the Caterpillar 

scraper at issue in this action. Teichert’s attorney informed 

the Ericksons that he believed Holt to be a proper defendant and 

would file his own action in state court against Caterpillar and 

Holt if the Ericksons’ action was not remanded. The Ericksons 

state that they “should have delayed filing the complaint until 

all pertinent investigation was completed” and now seek 

Case 2:06-cv-02866-RRB-GGH Document 20 Filed 07/02/07 Page 2 of 4
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

voluntary dismissal of the action without prejudice.1 

Caterpillar does not oppose the substance of the motion but 

seeks costs and fees related to the to-be-dismissed action. 

II. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) states that “an 

action shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff’s instance save 

upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as 

the court deems proper.” “[T]he District Court must consider 

whether the defendant will suffer some plain legal prejudice as 

a result of the dismissal.” Hamilton v. Firestone Tire & Rubber 

Co., 679 F.2d 143, 145 (9th Cir. 1982). Such prejudice, 

“however, does not result simply when defendant faces the 

prospect of a second lawsuit or when plaintiff merely gains some 

tactical advantage.” Id. The court finds that Caterpillar does 

not face plain legal prejudice. It alleges no injury beyond the 

expenses associated with filing removal papers and a joint 

status report. Such costs do not bar the court from granting 

voluntary dismissal, but may be considered when imposing terms 

upon the dismissal. Id. Therefore, the court DISMISSES the 

action without prejudice. 

 

1

 The Ericksons state that “since the statute of limitations 

does not expire until February of 2008, it is easier to simply 

dismiss this action without prejudice, and then re-file it 

against Caterpillar and Holt Cat Service Inc., in state court.” 

Case 2:06-cv-02866-RRB-GGH Document 20 Filed 07/02/07 Page 3 of 4
4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 The Ericksons do not dispute that they are liable for 

filing costs associated with the to-be-dismissed action. 

Therefore, the court AWARDS Caterpillar $320 for filing the 

original answer in state court and $350 for filing removal 

papers, for a total of $670 in costs. 

 As for fees, the Ericksons do not challenge the billing 

rates of Caterpillar’s attorneys, but argue that the 9.5 hours 

billed for the removal papers and 4.6 hours billed for the joint 

status report are excessive given the “reasonably perfunctory” 

nature of the filings. They argue that no fees should be 

awarded. The court rejects the Ericksons’ argument that a fee 

award is inappropriate, but finds Caterpillar’s requested fees 

to be excessive. Neither document required extensive research 

or the discussion of complex issues. No matter how simple or 

routine, however, the filings did result in an unnecessary 

expenditure of attorney resources. Therefore, the court AWARDS 

Caterpillar $1122, 50% of its requested fees. 

III. 

 For the above reasons, the court (1) AWARDS Caterpillar 

costs and fees of $1792 and (2) DISMISSES the action without 

prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of June, 2007. 

 s/RALPH R. BEISTLINE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-02866-RRB-GGH Document 20 Filed 07/02/07 Page 4 of 4