Anderson v. SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment

Background

Marc Anderson moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 to voluntarily dismiss his claims with prejudice. Because SeaWorld had answered, moved for summary judgment, and had not agreed to the dismissal, Anderson could dismiss only by court order on terms the court considered proper.

The court said it had to decide three questions: whether to dismiss the claims, whether the dismissal should be with or without prejudice, and whether to impose conditions. SeaWorld did not oppose dismissal with prejudice if the court adopted four proposed conditions. The court stated that voluntary dismissal generally should be granted unless the defendant showed legal prejudice, meaning harm to a legal interest, claim, or argument.

Conditions

First, SeaWorld requested a statement that the dismissal was not the result of a settlement. Anderson did not oppose that condition. The court therefore required language stating that the dismissal was not the result of a settlement, and that SeaWorld was providing no compensation or other benefit to Anderson, his counsel, or any other person or entity as a condition of or result of the dismissal.

Second, SeaWorld requested language preserving its right to pursue claims and remedies against Anderson or his counsel. Anderson did not oppose the request but proposed additional language stating that the reservation did not create or revive rights SeaWorld had waived or abandoned. The court adopted SeaWorld’s shorter proposed language and concluded that Anderson’s additional language was not required. The order therefore stated that SeaWorld’s rights to pursue claims and remedies against Anderson or his counsel were preserved.

Third, SeaWorld asked the court to declare it the prevailing party on Anderson’s claims, although SeaWorld said it was not seeking fees or costs as a condition of dismissal. Anderson argued that the declaration was unnecessary and premature. The court declined to adopt the condition, but stated that SeaWorld could argue it was the prevailing party if it later filed a motion for costs or attorney fees.

Fourth, SeaWorld asked to present evidence concerning Anderson’s claims, including evidence from Anderson’s sister, through live testimony, deposition designations, or findings of fact in the trial involving Ms. Nelson and Ms. Morizur’s standing arguments. The court viewed this as an evidentiary issue and concluded that Anderson’s testimony would not be relevant at trial. It denied SeaWorld’s request to impose this condition and stated that it would not hear that evidence at trial.

Ruling and effect

Judge Jeffrey S. White granted Anderson’s motion for voluntary dismissal with prejudice on the conditions stated in the order. The court also granted in part and denied in part SeaWorld’s requested conditions. Because the court did not adopt Anderson’s proposed language concerning SeaWorld’s second condition, it required Anderson to file notice by 4:00 p.m. on March 5, 2020, stating whether he accepted the conditions.

The court separately required the parties to file a joint updated witness list with time estimates by noon on March 6, 2020, so it could determine whether to adjust previously set trial time limits. The court also admonished the parties to conduct the trial and any later proceedings with civility and respect.