govinfo:USCOURTS-laed-2_25-cv-01969-0

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 
 
JIMMIE CORLEY ET AL CIVIL ACTION 
 
v. NO: 25-1969 
 
ADAM KRAUSE ET AL SECTION: C (1) 
 
ORDER AND REASONS 
 
 Before the court is a Motion to Stay or Dismiss Without Prejudice filed by 
plaintiffs, Jimmie Corley, Jeffrey Miles, Jamie White, Patricia Tate, John Jones, 
Forest Martin, and Gaye Heard, on March 17, 2026 (R. Doc. 21). Defendant, Krause 
and Kinsman Trial Lawyers, LLP, opposes the motion (R. Doc. 24). The motion to 
dismiss is GRANTED. 
BACKGROUND 
On September 22, 2025, plaintiffs sued Adam Krause, William Huye, Galindo 
Law Trial Attorneys, Krause and Kinsman Trial Lawyers, LLP, and Allied World 
Insurance Company, seeking damages for breach of contract and legal malpractice 
in connection with the handling of hurricane insurance claims (R. Doc. 1).1 Through 
the subject motion, plaintiffs now advise that this lawsuit was filed as a duplicate to 
a state court suit filed in Civil District Court, Orleans Parish , on August 29, 2025. 
 
1 Plaintiffs have since consented to the dismissal of William Huye and Allied World Insurance 
Company (R. Doc. 28). 

2 
 
Plaintiffs prefer to proceed in state court, pointing out that that court obtained 
jurisdiction first and is adequate to protect the rights of the parties. Plaintiffs desire 
to dismiss their federal court suit without prejudice. 
ANALYSIS 
 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) governs a motion to dismiss without 
prejudice and provides: 
Except as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the 
plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers 
proper. If a defendant has pleaded a counterclaim before being served 
with the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss, the action may be dismissed over 
the defendant’s objection only if the counterclaim can remain pending 
for independent adjudication. Unless the order states otherwise, a 
dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without prejudice. 
Because there are no counterclaims, this action may be dismissed on terms the court 
considers proper. 
 Generally, voluntary dismissal s should be freely granted unless the non -
moving party will suffer some plain legal prejudice other than just the prospect of a 
second lawsuit. Elbaor v. Tripath Imaging, Inc., 279 F.3d 314, 317 (5 th Cir. 2002). 
In analyzing the motion, t he court should first ask whether an unconditional 
dismissal will cause the non -movant to suffer plain legal prejudice. Id. If not, and 
absent evidence of abuse by the movant, the court should grant the motion. Id. Here, 
dismissal will require litigation of the claims in state court. The fact that plaintiff 
may gain a tactical advantage or defendant may lose a preferred forum is insufficient 

3 
 
to establish legal prejudice. See Manshack v. Southwestern Elec. Power Co. , 915 
F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1990); Templeton v. Nedlloyd Lines, 901 F.2d 1273, 1275-76 
(5th Cir. 1990). 
Also relevant is when plaintiff filed the Rule 41(a)(2) motion. In Hartford 
Accident Indemnity Co. v. Costa Lines Cargo Servs., Inc., 903 F.2d 352, 360 (5th Cir. 
1990), the Fifth Circuit affirmed a dismissal where suit was still in the pretrial stages. 
Templeton, 901 F.2d at 1275-1276. The subject lawsuit is in the pretrial stage. There 
is no scheduling order, no trial date , no discovery conducted , no deposition taken, 
and no hearing that has occurred. The pending motions to dismiss have not been 
ruled on. The parties can assert defenses and litigate the claims before the state court. 
Krause has failed to show it will suffer clear legal prejudice by a dismissal without 
prejudice. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion and hereby 
DISMISSES this case without prejudice. 
New Orleans, Louisiana this _____ day of May 2026. 
 
 
 
 
__________________________________ 
 WILLIAM J. CRAIN 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Passage view · GavelSight