# Pursell v. Hydrochem LLC.

> District Court, S.D. Illinois · August 18, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10155372

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, S.D. Illinois
- **Decided:** August 18, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10155372

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EARL PURSELL, III AND MONICA )
PURSELL, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
) Case No. 3:20-CV-01188-MAB
vs. )
)
HYDROCHEM LLC, ET AL., )
)
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

BEATTY, Magistrate Judge:
On July 27, 2022, Plaintiffs Earl Pursell III and Monica Pursell, with Defendants
Hydrochem LLC, PSC Industrial Outsourcing, LP, and Phillips 66 Company, and with
Third-Party Defendants, Miller Environmental, LLC, and Miller Industrial Service
Teams, Inc., filed a Stipulation of Dismissal requesting the Court to dismiss Defendant
PSC Industrial Outsourcing, LP with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) (Doc. 143).
Pursuant to the Stipulation of Dismissal filed by all of the parties in the present
matter, Defendant PSC Industrial Outsourcing, LP, is DISMISSED with prejudice.1 The

1 At the July 19, 2022 Motion Hearing, the Court raised the issue of federal subject matter jurisdiction to
the parties, as this case is in federal court pursuant to diversity jurisdiction and the Court has an
independent obligation to continuously police its federal subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §1332.
Jurisdiction is analyzed based on the events at the time the case is brought. If a case is initially filed in state
court and then removed to federal court, the time-of-filing rule means that the Court analyzes jurisdiction
at the time of removal, as that is when the case first appears in federal court. Hukic v. Aurora Loan Servs.,
588 F.3d 420, 427 (7th Cir. 2009). The Court assessed diversity jurisdiction when this case was first removed
to the Southern District of Illinois from state court and confirmed that complete diversity was present (see
Doc. 1, ¶¶ 4-10). Since then, there have been additional parties and claims added. Third Party Defendants
were added (Docs. 31 and 32) pursuant to this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. But
dismissal is pursuant to the to the Court's inherent authority to dismiss individual claims,
rather than Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). See Taylor v. Brown, 787 F.3d 851, 857 (7th Cir. 2015) ("Rule

41(a) does not speak of dismissing one claim in a suit; it speaks of dismissing 'an action'
which is to say, the whole case."); 9 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT & ARTHUR R. MILLER,
FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 2362 (4th ed.) ("The power to drop some
plaintiffs or defendants from the suit plainly exists, either explicitly in the Federal Rules
or in the district court's inherent power.").

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 18, 2022
s/ Mark A. Beatty
MARK A. BEATTY
United States Magistrate Judge

these two entities are not considered in the context of the diversity analysis because they are added solely
for the purpose of third-party liability. See Kemper/Prime Indus. Partners v. Montgomery Watson Americas, Inc.,
487 F.3d 1061, 1063 (7th Cir. 2007) (“[A] defendant’s impleader under Fed. R. Civ. P. 14 of a party that is
not diverse from the plaintiff does not destroy jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b)).”). And at the July 19,
2022 hearing, the Court verified that the addition of PSC Industrial Outsourcing did not divest the Court
of diversity jurisdiction because even though the Amended Complaint was silent as to PSC’s citizenship
(Doc. 68), PSC’s motion to dismiss confirmed that PSC is a foreign limited partnership (organized in
Delaware and a principal place of business in Texas). There are two partners that form this partnership and
each of the partners are corporations, which are, in turn, citizens of Delaware and Massachusetts for the
purpose of diversity jurisdiction (Docs. 112; 112-3). Plaintiffs are citizens of Louisiana and thus the addition
of PSC did not affect the Court’s diversity jurisdiction over the present matter (Doc. 1, p. 2).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10155372. Public record. Not legal advice.