### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 20710 Summary Calendar

RICARDO G. GARCIA,
Plaintiff

–

Appellant

v. INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT, INCORPORATED,
Defendant

– Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4: 18

- CV

- 3575

Before DAVIS, GRAVES , and HO , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * In the instant case (“ Garcia I ”), Plaintiff Ricardo Garcia filed a notice of dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(i). T he district court , the Honorable Lynn Hugh es presiding, issued an order of dismissal which included a condition that “[i]f refiled in or removed to the Southern District of Texas, the case will be assigned to Judge Hughes .” On t he next day,

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 23, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 18-20710 Document: 00514926417 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/23/2019No. 18

- 20710

2 Plaintiff re

- filed his c omplaint in Texas state court, a lleging largely the same set of facts and legal claims

. Defendants then removed the case to the Southern District of Texas ; t he case (“ Garcia II ”) was randomly allotted to the Honorable Sim Lake. Later, b y “[a]greement between judges,” Judge Lake transfe rred Garcia II to Judge Hughes. Plaintiff now appeals the district court’s order of dismissal in Garcia I , arguing that the re - filing condition is impermissible under Rule 41(a)(1)(i)

. Regardless of the merits on appeal , we recognize that this case is now moot. “ A claim becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Piggly Wiggly Clarksville, Inc. v. Mrs. Baird’s Bakeries , 177 F.3d 380, 383 ( 5th Cir. 1999). In this case, Judge Lake transferred Garcia II to Judge Hughes after Plaintiff filed his notice of appeal in Garcia I . Judge Lake’s transfer order was not compelled by Judge Hughes’ order of dismissal, but by “[a]greement between the judg es.” Regardless of a district court’s jurisdiction in a case after a plaintiff files a Rule 41(a)(1)(A) voluntary dismissal, w e permit intra

- district

case transfer s to prevent judge

- shopping : “Any district court . . . is free

. . . to require that a re

- fi led action be assigned to the original judge, or to require that if a re

- filed case is assigned to a different judge, that judge shall transfer the case to the original judge. ” Int’l Driver Training Inc. v. J

- BJRD Inc. , 202 F. App’x 714, 716 (5th Cir. 200 6)

. 1 Moreover, under Rule 41(a)(1)(B ), commonly referred to as the two

- dismissal rule, “a notice of dismissal [in the second case] operates as an adjudication on the merits.” Cabot Golf CL

- PP 1, LLC v. Nixon Peabody, LLP , 575 F. App’x 216, 218 (5th Cir. 2014). Plaintiff therefore cannot

1 While our unpublished opinions are not controlling precedent, they may be persuasive authority. See Ballard v. Burton , 444 F.3d 391, 401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Case: 18-20710 Document: 00514926417 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/23/2019No. 18

- 20710

3 voluntarily dismiss Garcia II and re

- file his case for a third time without having final judgment issued against him

— notwithstanding which judge he then draws

. Accordingly, we find that the contested condition in Judge Hughes’ order of dismissal , in Garcia I , can no longer affect Plaintiff’s claims, and this appeal must be dismissed as moot

. DISMISSED AS MOOT. Case: 18-20710 Document: 00514926417 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/23/2019