Houser v. Scottsdale, City of

1 WO [5] 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA [8] 9 Mark Houser, No. CV-23-01394-PHX-SMB (ESW) 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 City of Scottsdale, et al., 13 Defendants. [15] 16 Pending before the Court is Defendants City of Scottsdale, Officer Stephenson, 17 Detective Koerner, Officer Bogumill, and Sergeant Williamson’s (collectively, “City 18 Defendants”) “Motion to Stay and to Recover Costs and Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to Rule 19 41(d), Fed. R. Civ. P.” (Doc. 13). The City Defendants request a total award of $402 in 20 costs and $10,566.10 incurred in defending Plaintiff’s first action. (Doc. 13 at 8). The City 21 Defendants further request that the Court stay this matter until Plaintiff has paid these costs 22 and fees. The Court has reviewed the Motion (Doc. 13), Plaintiff’s Response (Doc. 14), 23 and the City Defendants’ Reply (Doc. 15). For the reasons discussed below, the Motion 24 will be denied. 25 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d) provides as follows: (d) Costs of a Previously Dismissed Action. If a plaintiff who [26] previously dismissed an action in any court files an action 27 based on or including the same claim against the same defendant, the court: [28] (1) may order the plaintiff to pay all or part of the costs 1 of that previous action; and 2 (2) may stay the proceedings until the plaintiff has complied. [3] 4 “Rule 41(d) is an expression of the Court’s inherent power to protect defendants 5 from the harassment of repeated lawsuits by the same plaintiff on the same claim.” Jurin 6 v. Google Inc., 695 F. Supp. 2d 1117, 1123 (E.D. Cal. 2010); see also Hacopian v. U.S. 7 Dep't of Labor, 709 F.2d 1295, 1297 (9th Cir. 1983) (describing the “dangers of harassment 8 and vexatious litigation . . . in cases covered by Rule 41(d)”). 9 “In analyzing purported violations of Rule 41, the Plaintiff bears the burden to show 10 a ‘persuasive explanation’ for its course of the litigation, while the Defendant must show 11 only that it ‘incurred needless expenditures’ as a result of the Plaintiff’s conduct.” Senah, 12 Inc v. Xi’an Forstar S&T Co, Ltd, No. 13-CV-04254-BLF, 2014 WL 3058292 , at *1 (N.D. 13 Cal. July 3, 2014) (citations omitted). The rule is “intended to serve as a deterrent to forum 14 shopping and vexatious litigation.” Simeone v. First Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 971 F.2d 103 , 108 15 (8th Cir. 1992)). “It conveys broad discretion on federal courts to order stays and payment 16 of costs, but neither costs nor a stay is mandatory.” Cisneros v. Moreno, No. 1:19-CV-1676 17 JLT PC, 2020 WL 7122074 , at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2020) (internal quotations and citation 18 omitted). 19 In 2022, Plaintiff filed an action against the City Defendants and numerous other 20 Defendants in the Superior Court of Arizona. Prior to removal, Defendant Community 21 Bridges, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss. On October 21, 2022, Defendants in that action 22 removed the case to the United States District Court, District of Arizona (Case No. CV-2223 01809-SMB). On November 1, 2022, Defendants ConnectionsAZ, LLC and Maricopa 24 County Special Health Care District moved to dismiss the action. (Id., Docs. 5-7). On 25 November 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. (Id., Doc. 8). On 26 November 8, 2022, the District Judge dismissed the matter without prejudice. (Id., Doc. 27 9). 28 On July 14, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the instant action. (Doc. 1). The 1 || Complaint does not name Community Bridges, Inc., ConnectionsAZ, LLC, or Maricopa || County Special Health Care District as Defendants. Plaintiff's Response (Doc. 14 at 6) || correctly notes that the Complaint in the pending matter names only the City of Scottsdale 4|| and four police officers, eliminating ten of the Defendants named in the prior action. 5 In opposing the City Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 13), Plaintiff states that he 6 || voluntarily dismissed the prior action after conferring with counsel for the City Defendants || regarding purported deficiencies in Plaintiff's pleading and “and after hours of reviewing 8 || evidence in the First City Defendants’ possession.” (Doc. 14 at 6). Plaintiff states that he 9|| “then took several months to carefully and thoughtfully rethink and reevaluate the propriety of his claims, and ultimately decided to significantly streamline his claims and refile only 11 |} asmall portion of them against only a third of the First Action’s defendants.” (/d.). 12 After reviewing the parties’ briefing, the Court finds that Plaintiff has presented a 13 || persuasive explanation for his litigation conduct. See Esquivel v. Arau, 913 F. Supp. 1382 , 1391 n. 14(C.D. Cal. 1996) (noting that a court may decline to award fees where a plaintiff 15 || has a persuasive explanation for his litigation conduct or where justice so requires) (citing Zucker v. Katz, 708 F. Supp. 525, 539 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (noting that courts may refuse to 17 || award costs under 41(d) where plaintiff offers a “good reason for the dismissal of the prior 18 || action or [where] the plaintiff is financially unable to pay the costs”)). The Court does not find evidence demonstrating that Plaintiff filed the prior action or instant action for any vexatious, harassing, or forum-shopping purposes. Considering the intent of Rule 41(d), the applicable law, and the circumstances in this case, the Court finds it appropriate to deny the City Defendants’ Motion (Doc. 13). Accordingly, 23 IT IS ORDERED denying the City Defendants’ “Motion to Stay and to Recover 24 || Costs and Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to Rule 41(d), Fed. R. Civ. P.” (Doc. 13). 25 Dated this 11th day of December, 2023. 7 , 26 Cay) □□□ 27 United States Magistrate Fudge [28] _3-