The Hawaii federal district court denied the pro se plaintiff’s motion to dismiss his claim against the carrier without prejudice. Greenspon v. AIG Specialty Ins. Co., et al., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 144148 (D. Haw. Aug. 23, 2019).
Greenspon secured a default judgment against AIG’s insured in state court in 2014. In November 2018, AIG removed the case to federal district court. Greenspon filed a motion to remand. On February 25, 2019, the court denied Greenspon’s motion for remand because Greenspon had not asserted a claim against the sole in-state party, a law firm, rendering the law firm’s presence as a defendant improper and resulting in its exclusion when determining diversity.
Greenspon sought reconsideration of the denial of his motion for remand because AIG sought to intervene in the state case that was revived by the filing of a Special Proceeding in state court by AIG to set aside the default judgment. The 2014 Lawsuit and Special Proceeding were consolidated by the state court. The federal court denied Greenspon’s motion for reconsideration.
AIG then moved for judgment on the pleadings. Greenspon did not oppose dismissal of AIG and the law firm but asked that dismissal of both defendants be without prejudice. The court grant dismissal of both defendants without prejudice and instructed Greenspon to file an amended complaint against either or both parties. Greenspon did not file an amended complaint.
Greenspon then filed the instant Motion to Withdraw and Dismiss Claims Without Prejudice. He argued that the pending state court proceedings were duplicative and related to the insurance coverage proceedings in the federal court and that AIG had voluntarily entwined itself in the state-court proceedings. Pending before the state court were Greenspon’s motion for summary judgment and AIG’s motion to dismiss Greenspon’s counterclaim.
The court found that Greenspon was entitled to dismiss this case and remove himself from federal jurisdiction in favor of pursuing the matter in state court. However, any dismissal had to be with prejudice. Because Greenspon had not pleaded his motion in the alternative, to seek dismissal with prejudice, the motion was denied. This motion represented Greenspon’s third attempt to have the federal case heard in state court in contravention of the courts unambiguous determination that it was properly in federal court. Greenspon sought to game the judicial system by doing an end run around the court’s previous decision to exercise jurisdiction over this matter.
If Greenspon wished to dismiss his claims with prejudice, he was instructed to notify the court and opposing counsel.