Inappropriate Dismissal Of Counterclaims Is Harmless Error Absent Prejudice In Having To Reassert Such Counterclaims In A Subsequent Action
Client Alert | 1 min read | 03.05.07
The Federal Circuit in Walter Kidde Portable Equipment, Inc. v. Universal Security Instruments, Inc., (No. 06-1420, March 2, 2007) finds that the district erred as a matter of law when it dismissed the defendant’s counterclaims over objection from the defendant, while granting the plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal. The plaintiff had filed a motion for voluntary dismissal in order to re-file its complaint after curing a standing defect raised by the defendant. Part of this standing defect also related to what law should govern the document purporting to transfer ownership in the asserted patent to the plaintiff, thereby also raising a subject matter jurisdiction issue for the district court. Rather than addressing the subject matter jurisdiction issue, however, the district court not only granted the plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice, but went a step further by also dismissing the defendant’s counterclaims. The plaintiff re-filed its complaint on the same day as its motion for voluntary dismissal was granted.
The Federal Circuit finds that it was error for the district court to not first consider the subject matter jurisdiction issue since at least some of the counterclaims were unrelated to the plaintiff’s standing defect. That fact notwithstanding, the Federal Circuit further finds that this error was harmless since the defendant was free to reassert all counterclaims in the subsequently-filed action, and there was no evidence that the defendant was prejudiced by having to do so.
Insights
Client Alert | 7 min read | 12.17.25
After hosting a series of workshops and issuing multiple rounds of materials, including enforcement notices, checklists, templates, and other guidance, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has proposed regulations to implement the Climate Corporate Data Accountability Act (SB 253) and the Climate-Related Financial Risk Act (SB 261) (both as amended by SB 219), which require large U.S.-based businesses operating in California to disclose greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate-related risks. CARB also published a Notice of Public Hearing and an Initial Statement of Reasons along with the proposed regulations. While CARB’s final rules were statutorily required to be promulgated by July 1, 2025, these are still just proposals. CARB’s proposed rules largely track earlier guidance regarding how CARB intends to define compliance obligations, exemptions, and key deadlines, and establish fee programs to fund regulatory operations.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.17.25
Client Alert | 2 min read | 12.16.25
Client Alert | 11 min read | 12.15.25
New York LLC Transparency Act: Key Requirements and Deadlines
