Crabtree v. Acadia Healthcare Company, Inc. et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DEBRA CARBTREE, as Guardian 	)
Ad Litem of JEREMY HAYS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 26-CV-082-GLJ
)
ACADIA HEALTHCARE 	)
COMPANY, INC., ACADIA 	)
MANAGEMENT COMPANY, 	)
LLC, and ROLLING HILLS 	)
HOSPITAL, LLC, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Special Appearance and Motion
to Stay and Tax Costs Per Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(d) and Brief in Support (Renewed from
State Court Proceedings) [Docket No. 10]. 	Plaintiff, Debra Crabtree’s, as Guardian Ad
Litem of Jeremy Hays, initiated this action in state court in Pontotoc County, Oklahoma
against the above-named Defendants.1 Defendants removed this action based on diversity
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 and 1446. See Docket No. 2 (“Notice of
Removal”). 	Defendants now seek to recover some of their costs incurred in the previous
litigation and have the case stayed until such costs are paid by Plaintiff. 	For the reasons
set forth below, the Defendants’ Motion [Docket No. 10] is DENIED.
1 As set forth in more detail below, this case has a complicated procedural history that is relevant
to the issues addressed herein.
6:26-cv-00082-GLJ Document 41 Filed in ED/OK on 06/02/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Procedural Background
Plaintiff originally filed personal injury claims on behalf of Mr. Hays on April 1,
2021, in district court in Oklahoma County, Oklahoma, Case No. CJ-2021-1409 (“Original
Case”). 	See Docket No. 33, p. 5. 	For over three years, the parties actively litigated the
Original Case, including engaging in substantial and voluminous discovery, conducting
fifteen depositions, securing eight scheduling orders, exchanging witness and exhibit lists,
and identifying expert witnesses. 	See Docket No. 10, p. 3. 	On June 11, 2025, Plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the Original Case without prejudice pursuant to 12 O.S. § 684(A).
Id., p. 4. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff, in conjunction with other plaintiffs, filed a new case
in the district court in Pontotoc County, Oklahoma, Case No. CJ-2025-188 (“Consolidated
Case”). 	Id. 	In addition to Plaintiff and Defendants from the Original Case, the
Consolidated Case included additional plaintiffs asserting different claims against the same
Defendants as in the Original Case along with some additional new defendants. Id. Within
the Consolidated Case, Plaintiff asserted the same claims against Defendants that she
asserted in the Original Case. See Docket No. 33, p. 6.
Shortly after the Consolidated Case was filed, some or all the defendants therein
moved to sever the claims into four separate cases. 	See Docket No. 10, p. 4. 	On March
16, 2026, the Pontotoc District Court issued an order severing the four combined lawsuits.
Id., Ex. 9. 	The present case was then refiled on March 23, 2026, Case No. CJ-2026-64
(“Severed New Case”), which contains the same Plaintiff, the same Defendants and the
same claims as the Original Case. 	See Docket No. 2, Ex. 2. 	On March 23, 2026,
6:26-cv-00082-GLJ Document 41 Filed in ED/OK on 06/02/26 Page 2 of 6

3
Defendants removed the Severed New Case to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction.
See Docket No. 2.
At the time Defendants sought to sever the Consolidated Case, they also moved to
stay and tax costs pursuant to 12 Okla. St. § 684(D). 	See Docket No. 10, p. 2. 	The
Consolidated Case Court took Defendants’ motion to stay and tax costs under advisement.
Id., Ex. 9. After removal, Defendants renewed their motion to stay and tax costs pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(d). Id.
Analysis
I. 	Legal Standard
Rule 41(d), provides:
If a plaintiff who previously dismissed an action in any court files an action
based on or including the same claim against the same defendant, the court:
(1) may order the plaintiff to pay all or part of the costs of that previous
action; and
(2) may stay the proceedings until the plaintiff has complied.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(d). 	Thus, “[t]o obtain an award of fees and costs, ‘the moving party
need only establish that: (1) a plaintiff's previous action was dismissed; (2) a second action
was commenced that is based upon or includes the same claim against the same defendant;
and (3) there are costs and attorneys' fees incurred by the defendant in the prior action that
will not be useful in the newly-filed action.’” 	Lyons v. Dish Network L.L.C., 2013 WL
5637992, at *1 (D. Colo. Oct. 15, 2013) (quoting Warnick v. Dish Network LLC, 2013 WL
1151884, at *6 (D. Colo. Mar. 19, 2013) (quoting Siepel v. Bank of America, N.A., 239
F.R.D. 558, 563 (E.D. Mo. 2006)). The decision whether to impose costs and fees under
6:26-cv-00082-GLJ Document 41 Filed in ED/OK on 06/02/26 Page 3 of 6

4
Rule 41(d) is in the discretion of the court. Id. (citing Meredith v. Stovall, 216 F.3d 1087,
2000 WL 807355, at *1 (10th Cir.2000) (unpublished table opinion)). “The purpose of the
rule is to prevent the maintenance of vexatious lawsuits and to secure, where such suits are
shown to have been brought repetitively, payment of costs for prior instances of such
vexatious conduct.” Oteng v. Golden Star Resources, Ltd., 615 F.Supp.2d 1228, 1240 (D.
Colo. 2009) (quoting Meredith, 2000 WL 807355, at *1). 	“No showing of bad faith is
required before costs may be imposed on the plaintiff under Rule 41(d), but the plaintiff's
motive in dismissing the prior action may be taken into account.” Id. (citing Wason Ranch
Corp. v. Hecla Mining Co., 2008 WL 906110, at *17 (D. Colo. Mar. 31, 2008)).
Although Rule 41(d) has important purposes like deterring forum shopping and
vexatious litigation, as well as preventing attempts to gain a tactical advantage by
dismissing and refiling the suit, see Sargeant v. Hall, 951 F.3d 1280, 1287 (11th Cir. 2020)
(collecting cases), other rules, such as Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
the court's inherent authority, are available to address the same type of litigation conduct.
Glovebox Technologies Inc. v. Da Cruz, 2025 WL 316559, at *4 (D. Colo. Jan. 28, 2025).
II. 	Defendants’ Motion Tax Costs
Defendants seek an order taxing costs in the amount of $6,902.81 for various
deposition and copying costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(d). See Docket No. 10. Defendants’
counsel’s affidavit states specifically that the requested costs “were reasonably incurred by
Defendants in the four cases that were previously pending in Oklahoma County, and for
which Defendants request the Court tax as costs to these four (4) Plaintiffs and/or their
6:26-cv-00082-GLJ Document 41 Filed in ED/OK on 06/02/26 Page 4 of 6

5
counsel pursuant to terms of 12 O.S. § 684(D).” Id., Ex. 11. at ¶ 4. Moreover, although
Defendants do not need to show bad faith on the part of Plaintiff, Defendants argue
Plaintiff’s dismissal of four cases in Oklahoma County district court and combining them
in the Consolidated Case in Pontotoc County evinces vexatious conduct and the appearance
of forum-shopping. Id., p. 8. In response, Plaintiff argues that the Court should decline to
exercise its discretion to award costs because the depositions will be useful in this case and
Defendants failed to provide sufficient detail supporting the copying costs. 	See Docket
No. 34.
After carefully evaluating the procedural history of this case and reviewing the
affidavit supporting the cost request, the Court respectfully declines to exercise its
discretion to award the requested costs. 	First, Defendants make no showing that the
requested costs are for matters that will not be useful in this case. 	See, e.g., Lyons, 2013
WL 5637992, at *1; Esquivel v. Arau, 913 F.Supp. 1382, 1387 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (“[I]t is
clear that defendants have incurred needless expenditures as a result. Thus, an award under
Rule 41(d) is appropriate.”). The requested deposition and copying costs appear on their
face to be the type of matters that will be useful in litigating this case going forward.
Second, it is unclear whether the costs for the requested depositions are related exclusively
to this case, as opposed to any of the three other cases combined in the Consolidated Case
as referenced in counsel’s affidavit. 	See Dockt No. 10, Ex. 11. at ¶ 4. 	Moreover,
Defendants recovered some portion of their costs in two cases previously part of the
Consolidate Case. 	See Docket No. 38, p.3. 	There is nothing in counsel’s affidavit or
6:26-cv-00082-GLJ Document 41 Filed in ED/OK on 06/02/26 Page 5 of 6

6
Defendants’ Motion indicating that those already recovered costs are different from the
costs sought in this matter. 	Third, although Defendant argues Plaintiff’s conduct was
vexatious and demonstrates forum-shopping, it does not seek any fees or costs related to
the actions directly related to the Consolidated Case and Severed New Case. 	See Oteng,
615 F.Supp.2d at 1240 (“The purpose of the rule is to . . . secure . . . payment of costs for
prior instances of such vexatious conduct.”). Indeed, the outcome might well be different
if Defendants were seeking fees and costs related to severing the Consolidated Case as
opposed to depositions and copying costs incurred in the Original Case. Of course, nothing
in this order prevents a prevailing party from seeking costs pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d)
and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920-24 at the conclusion of the case.
Lastly, because the Court declines to tax the requested costs, the Court declines to
stay the case.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, as set forth herein, Defendants’ Special Appearance and Motion to
Stay and Tax Costs Per Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 41(d) and Brief in Support (Renewed from State
Court Proceedings) [Docket No. 10] is DENIED.
DATED this 2nd day of June, 2026.
GERALD L. JACKSON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6:26-cv-00082-GLJ Document 41 Filed in ED/OK on 06/02/26 Page 6 of 6