Outlaw v. World Finance Corporation (CONSENT)

Filing 20

OPINION AND ORDER that plaintiff's 17 MOTION to Dismiss is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED without prejudice; that a separate final judgment will be entered. Signed by Honorable Judge Charles S. Coody on 7/16/2012. (cc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
KELLI OUTLAW,
Plaintiff,
v.
WORLD FINANCE CORPORATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACT. NO. 1:11cv901-CSC
(WO)

OPINION and ORDER
Now pending before the court is the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss filed on July 11,
2012.1 See Doc. # 17. The plaintiff seeks to have this case voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit a plaintiff to dismiss an action
voluntarily only “by court order, on terms that the court considers proper” after the defendant
has filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment, unless there is a stipulation signed
by all the parties to the action. FED.R.CIV.P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and (ii). “A voluntary dismissal
without prejudice is not a matter of right.” Fisher v. Puerto Rico Marine Mgmt, Inc. 940
F.2d 1502, 1502 (11th Cir.1991).
Because the defendant has filed an answer before the plaintiff filed her motion to
dismiss, Outlaw cannot voluntarily dismiss her claims against World Finance Corporation
without a stipulation filed by all the parties or an order from the court. The parties have not

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) and M.D. Ala. LR 73.1, the parties have consented to the United
States Magistrate Judge conducting all proceedings in this case and ordering the entry of final judgment.

signed or filed a stipulation. Thus, FED.R.CIV.P. 41(a)(2) governs the plaintiff’s motion.
The court retains broad discretion when considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to
FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2). See Pontenberg v. Boston Scientific Corp., 252 F.3d 1253, 1255
(11th Cir. 2001). “A district court considering a motion for a dismissal without prejudice
should bear in mind principally the interests of the defendant, for it is the defendant’s
position that the court should protect.” McCants v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 781 F.2d 855, 856
(11th Cir. 1986). “The purpose of the rule ‘is primarily to prevent voluntary dismissals which
unfairly affect the other side, and to permit the imposition of curative conditions.’” Id.
(quoting Alamance Industries, Inc. v. Filene's, 291 F.2d 142, 146 (1st Cir. 1961). The
defendant does not object to the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss. See Doc. # 19. Therefore,
upon consideration of the motion and for good cause, it is
ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (doc. # 17) be and is hereby
GRANTED and this case be and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice.
A separate final judgment will be entered.
Done this 16th day of July, 2012.

/s/Charles S. Coody
CHARLES S. COODY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2