Huer v. United Rentals, Inc.

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 24-cv-01265-STV
MITCH HUER,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED RENTALS, INC.,
Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________
Chief Magistrate Judge Scott T. Varholak
This civil action is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss (the
“Motion”) seeking to voluntarily dismiss this matter. [#21] The parties have consented
to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge for all proceedings, including entry
of a final judgment. 	[## 12, 14] 	For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the
Motion and DISMISSES this case WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
This matter was removed to this Court on May 7, 2024. 	[#1] 	Defendant filed a
Motion to Dismiss on January 6, 2025. [#21] In the Motion, Plaintiff indicates that “[u]pon
further 	investigation 	Plaintiff 	believes 	that 	damages 	are 	less 	than 	the 	$75,000
jurisdictional threshold for removal to the United States District Court.” 	[Id. at 1] 	The
Motion does not identify what “further investigation” caused Plaintiff to change his
damages estimate from the $108,384.50 originally sought in the Complaint. 	[#7]
Defendant does not oppose the Motion, but asks that the Court, pursuant to Federal Rule
Case No. 1:24-cv-01265-STV Document 26 filed 02/11/25 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 3

2
of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), impose two conditions on the dismissal: (1) that Plaintiff agree
not recover or seek more than $74,999.99, and (2) that Plaintiff pay defendant the costs
incurred in this action before any new action can proceed. [#23 at 10] Plaintiff does not
oppose the first condition but does oppose the second condition. [#25 at 1] Alternatively,
Plaintiff asks that any imposition of costs incurred be limited to those described in 28
U.S.C. 1920.
Rule 41(a)(2) provides that, after the opposing party serves an answer or motion
for summary judgment, “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court
order, on terms that the court considers proper.” “The rule is designed primarily to prevent
voluntary dismissals which unfairly affect the other side, and to permit the imposition of
curative conditions.” 	Frank v. Crawley Petroleum Corp., 992 F.3d 987, 998 (10th Cir.
2021) (quotation omitted). 	“Conditions are designed to alleviate any prejudice a
defendant might otherwise suffer upon refiling of an action.” 	Id. (quotation omitted).
“[P]rejudice is a function of ... practical factors including: the opposing party's effort and
expense in preparing for trial; excessive delay and lack of diligence on the part of the
movant; insufficient explanation of the need for a dismissal; and the present stage of
litigation.” Id. (quotation omitted). “These factors are neither exhaustive nor conclusive;
the court should be sensitive to other considerations unique to the circumstances of each
case.” 	Id. (quotation omitted). 	“[I]n reaching its conclusion, the district court should
endeavor to insure substantial justice is accorded to both parties, and therefore the court
must consider the equities not only facing the defendant, but also those facing the
plaintiff.” Id. (quotation omitted). “The district court, however, should impose only those
conditions which actually will alleviate harm to the defendant.” Id. (quotation omitted).
Case No. 1:24-cv-01265-STV Document 26 filed 02/11/25 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 3

3
Here, the Court concludes that two conditions should be imposed upon dismissal.
First, Plaintiff may not recover or seek more than $74,999.99 should he refile this action
in state court. 	Plaintiff has already agreed to that condition. 	Second, Plaintiff may not
refile this action until he pays Defendant the $405 filing fee Defendant incurred in
removing this action from state court. 	Plaintiff has not provided an explanation for his
changed damages calculation (or why he could not have concluded earlier that the
damages were under $75,000) and Defendant needlessly incurred the $405 in filing fees
based upon the representation that damages were $108,384.50, thereby prejudicing
Defendant. 	Defendant has not identified any 	other prejudice that it incurred by having
the matter removed to this court (as opposed to having been maintained in state court)
and, therefore, the Court does not impose any other conditions upon removal.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss [#21] and this matter
is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 	This dismissal is premised upon the following
two conditions: First, Plaintiff may not recover or seek more than $74,999.99 should he
refile this action in state court. 	Plaintiff has already agreed to that condition. 	Second,
Plaintiff may not refile this action until he pays Defendant the $405 filing fee Defendant
incurred in removing this action from state court.
DATED: February 11, 2025 	BY THE COURT:
s/Scott T. Varholak
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
Case No. 1:24-cv-01265-STV Document 26 filed 02/11/25 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 3