On May 1, 2015, in In re Amerijet International, Inc., the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a defendant's service of an answer in a state court action prior to removal precludes a plaintiff from voluntarily dismissing the removed case under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (Nos. 14-20521, 14-20522, (5th Cir. May 1, 2015)).

On April 14, 2014, Amerijet International Inc. (Amerijet) filed a petition and application for injunctive relief against Zero Gravity Corp. (Zero Gravity) in Texas state court. Zero Gravity responded by filing a pleading that set out the facts of the case, and that also requested injunctive and other relief. On May 9, 2014, Zero Gravity removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The next day, Amerijet filed a motion for voluntary dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss a case without a court order before an opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The district court denied the motion, reasoning that there were unresolved issues in the case, including Zero Gravity's counterclaim for injunctive and other relief.

On June 4, 2014, after being advised that the parties had settled the matter, the court issued a final dismissal, but retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement. Zero Gravity later filed a motion to enforce the settlement, and the court reopened the case. At a show cause hearing, the court reiterated that Amerijet's previous notice of voluntary dismissal was ineffective because of Zero Gravity's counterclaim. Amerijet then filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Fifth Circuit premised on its notice of voluntary dismissal, and asked the Fifth Circuit to direct the district court to relinquish any further exercise of power over the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In an issue of first impression, the Fifth Circuit determined that an answer sufficient under state law precludes voluntary dismissal in a subsequently removed federal case, even if the pre-removal pleading does not meet the requirements for an answer under the FRCP. The court reasoned that the language of FRCP 41 only refers to "an answer," and does not specify that the answer must comply with the FRCP. Further, the court held that requiring a pre-removal answer to satisfy the FRCP as a prerequisite to voluntary dismissal would not serve the purpose of "ease of administration" underlying FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Applying these principles, the court then held that Zero Gravity's state court filing was an "answer" under Texas law, as it alleged facts that constituted defenses to Amerijet's claims and requested relief. As a result, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision that Amerijet's voluntary dismissal was ineffective, and denied the petition for mandamus.