Mark M. McCulloch, Trish A. Walsh, FARLEIGH WADA WITT, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Leah C. Lively, Sean M. Driscoll, OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Attorneys for Defendants.
OPINION & ORDER
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ, United States District Judge.
Defendants move for relief from this Court’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (“Voluntary Dismissal Order”). Defendants ask the Court to grant their motion for the limited purpose of affording them the opportunity to seek prevailing party fees and costs. The Court grants the motion.
Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant Momentive Specialty Chemicals, Inc., alleging causes of action for negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary relationship. Defendant asserted that Plaintiff’s alleged injuries were caused by non-parties whom Plaintiff had failed to join in the action. Plaintiff then sought to amend her complaint by adding three additional defendants. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend and Plaintiff filed her amended complaint on January 31, 2014.
On April 1, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint, arguing that this Court lacked personal jurisdiction over the three defendants Plaintiff added in her amended complaint. From April until November 2014, the parties conducted discovery and Plaintiff prepared her response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On June 4, 2014, this Court entered an Order granting Plaintiff an extension of time to file a response to the motion to dismiss and authorizing Plaintiff to “conduct jurisdictional discovery to the extent it is precisely focused at matters relating to personal jurisdiction.” Order, June 4, 2014, . This Court granted Plaintiff three additional extensions of time to respond to the motion to dismiss.
On October 20, 2014, Plaintiff sent a letter to the Court, indicating that Plaintiff intended to dismiss the lawsuit. Lively Decl. Att. 1, [63-1]. Plaintiff explained that the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S.Ct. 746 (2014), reversed the Ninth Circuit decision and “changed the rules of general jurisdiction”; therefore, Plaintiff determined that there was “no basis for general jurisdiction over any of the defendants . . . .” Id. On November 26, 2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. In a letter to the Court accompanying the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel stated:
Enclosed is a copy of Motion for Voluntary Dismissal which was filed this afternoon. I sent this in a stipulated form to opposing counsel Leah Lively on November 7, 2014, and November 19, 2014, but I have not received a response. She earlier indicated she wanted to pursue the question of attorney fees and costs, and I indicated I was willing to do that.
If you find the attached Order acceptable, please sign and enter it.
The Plaintiff intends to refile this matter in Canada to avoid jurisdictional problems existing in the United States.
Lively Decl. Att. 3, [63-3].
On December 1, 2014, the Court entered the Voluntary Dismissal Order, granting Plaintiff’s motion. Order, Dec. 1, 2014, . On January 2, 2015, Defendants filed the present ...