Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03443/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03443-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Sanjay M. Rallapally
Appellee
Sankar Reddy
Appellant
Seshamma Reddy
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3443

___________

Seshamma Reddy; *

Sankar Reddy, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Missouri.

Sanjay M. Rallapally, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: July 7, 2004

Filed: July 19, 2004

___________

Before BYE, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Seshamma and Sankar Reddy (Reddys) filed a personal injury lawsuit in

Missouri state court, which defendant Sanjay Rallapally (Rallapally) removed to

federal court. The Reddys eventually moved to dismiss their action without

prejudice. The district court1

 granted the motion on the condition that if the Reddys

commenced an action in any court based on the same claims against Rallapally, they

would have to pay, upon Rallapally’s motion, Rallapally’s costs and reasonable

Appellate Case: 03-3443 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/19/2004 Entry ID: 1789327 
-2-

attorney fees incurred in defending the instant case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The

Reddys appeal, arguing the condition was not proper under Missouri law, and the

condition was an abuse of discretion because only fees attributable to work performed

that will not be useful in continuing or renewed litigation could properly be awarded

under federal law. 

We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s imposition of conditions

on a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2). See Herring v. City of Whitehall, 804

F.2d 464, 466 (8th Cir. 1986). We find no abuse of discretion here. First, Missouri

law governing conditions on voluntary dismissals does not apply. See Fed. R. Civ.

P. 81(c); see also Com/Tech Communication Techs., Inc. v. Wireless Data Sys., Inc.,

163 F.3d 149, 150-51 (2d Cir. 1998) (where matter is covered by Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, it is settled that Federal Rule applies in face of contrary state law).

Second, the condition the district court imposed is not uncommon in cases of

voluntary dismissal. See Marlow v. Winston & Strawn, 19 F.3d 300, 303 (7th Cir.

1994) (in exercising Rule 41(a) discretion, courts typically impose as a condition of

dismissal that plaintiff pay defendant’s expenses “incurred in defending the suit,

which usually includes reasonable attorneys’ fees”); Kern v. TXO Prod. Corp., 738

F.2d 968, 972 (8th Cir. 1984) (concluding district court abused its discretion in not

imposing condition respecting costs and attorney fees where voluntary dismissal

occurred after trial began). The appropriate amount of any future award of costs and

fees is not before us.

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

 ______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3443 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/19/2004 Entry ID: 1789327