The federal judge overseeing a putative class action claiming that a booting company and property management company are liable for millions of dollars in illegally collected fees allowed the plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss the case but not without blasting their lawyers' tactics and inviting the defense to seek attorney fees.

"The court grants plaintiffs' motion but writes to document the inane positions plaintiffs' counsel have taken here to avoid litigating in federal court," wrote Judge Michael Brown of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Brown went on to accuse the lawyers of forum shopping by pushing to have the case dismissed when it became apparent the defense was likely to win on summary judgment.

Brown derided the plaintiffs' claims that they mistakenly said the defendants, Castle Parking Solutions and Beacon Management Services, collected millions of dollars in allegedly illegal booting fees after the case was removed to federal court.

"The day after defendants filed the notice of removal, plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to drop this allegation, claiming they did not intend to include this allegation, did so 'inadvertent[ly], and have 'no evidence' about the total fees defendants collected," Brown wrote. "A heck of an allegation to make 'inadvertently.'"

Brown said he had little choice but to dismiss the case with prejudice but would allow the defendants to seek attorney fees under a federal rule allowing a party to recover against an opponent who "multiplies the proceedings in any case unreasonably and vexatiously."

"Indeed," wrote Brown, "plaintiffs have forced defendants to expend significant time and effort responding to forum shopping motions premised on misrepresentations … plaintiffs' counsel's conduct during this litigation appears 'tantamount to bad faith.'"

The case is one of several dozen putative class actions targeting booting companies and property owners in and around Atlanta. The rest are predominantly in Fulton County State Court.

The plaintiffs in the federal action—two people whose cars were booted and had to pay $75 to have the devices removed—are represented by Matthew Wetherington and Robert Friedman of the Wetherington Law Firm, Kevin Patrick of Kevin Patrick Law and Kurt Kastorf of The Summerville Firm.

Wetherington said there was no effort to forum shop or dodge federal jurisdiction and that the plaintiffs were only attempting to make sure the proper parties were named when they amended their complaint.

"We've offered to refile in federal court, we're happy to litigate in federal court," Wetherington said. "We just don't think there's a valid claim there."

"The court said we were forum shopping, and after we investigated we moved to dismiss it with prejudice, and the court said that was another attempt at forum shopping," he said.

"We think it's a misunderstanding of the information we were provided, and when it was provided," said Wetherington, who along with Friedman, Werner and Patrick filed the other booting actions.

"We do understand the court's concern, but that's not what's happening in this case," he said. "And we don't think there's a basis for fees."

He said defendant Castle Rock, is preparing to mediate all of the claims against it in the near future.

Wetherington said his co-counsel were not involved in the pleadings that spurred Brown's ire.

Co-defendant Beacon, which fought the effort to have the suit against it dismissed unless it was guaranteed its legal fees and expenses, is represented by Rand McClellan and Brian Noethlich of Baker & Hostetler in Columbus, Ohio; Trevor Hiestand of Waldon Adelman Castilla Hiestand & Prout; Michael Rust, Myada El-Sawi Baudry and Jared Jacobs of Gray, Rust, St. Amand, Moffett & Brieske; Brynda Insley of Taylor English Duma; and Harry Jackson Jr. of Insley & Race.

They did not respond to a request for comment.

According to Brown's order and other filings, the suit naming Donald Bankhead and Keith Thompson as class representatives was filed in Fulton County State Court in August 2017. The suit accused Castle of booting cars in violation of Atlanta ordinances and said  Beacon had hired Castle to do so on properties it managed.

Beacon filed for removal to federal court, writing that the potential damages for the putative class exceeded $5 million.

The plaintiffs filed to drop that claim and moved to determine whether federal jurisdiction was proper, arguing that "the amount in controversy may only be in the hundreds of thousands."

The judge then handling the case, William Duffey Jr., allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint but said he had already found that the case belonged in federal court.

Duffey later took senior status and Brown took over the case.

"On the day they received that order," Brown wrote, "plaintiffs moved to dismiss defendant Beacon (the diverse defendant), claiming they recently learned that defendant Beacon did not, in fact, direct defendant Castle to boot vehicles on properties Beacon managed."

The plaintiffs instead said the homeowners' association at the property where the cars were booted "might be the correct party to sue along with defendant Castle," Brown said.

During a hearing on their motion to dismiss, Brown "found that plaintiffs had not shown their motion was based on newly discovered information but rather was intended to subvert the prior judge's ruling that defendant Beacon had properly removed the case."

Brown said a new amended complaint attempting to add the association and drop Beacon did not "change the court's earlier conclusion that there is reason to believe that the plaintiffs are forum shopping."

Again faced with the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss, this time with prejudice, Brown said he would do so.

"[T]he dismissal with prejudice gives defendants all they could hope for here, a dismissal with preclusive effect—at least related to the named plaintiffs," he said. "And unlike plaintiffs' motion to dismiss without prejudice, a dismissal with prejudice eliminates forum shopping concerns about these plaintiffs. They cannot refile these claims anywhere."

He retained jurisdiction in the case to entertain Beacon's motion for fees.