Mid-Continent Casualty Company v. Don Brady Construction Company, Inc. et al

Filing 114

ORDER NOTING 113 Response to Court Order & GRANTING 113 Motion to Dismiss Claims against Donald Brady & John C. Collins w/o prejudice. Plf's claims against said sole remaining dfts are DISMISSED w/o prejudice as set out. Clerk is directed to re-open this action & submit a JS-6 as set out. Preliminary Injunction is DISSOLVED as set out. Signed by Judge Callie V. S. Granade on 8/21/2013. (tot)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DON BRADY CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY, INC., d/b/a APEX 3
CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
ELIZABETH BRADY LINDLEY, an
individual; ROBERT LINDLEY, an
individual; DONALD BRADY, an
individual and JOHN C. COLLINS,
an individual,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-0088-CG-C

ORDER
This cause is before the court on the plaintiff’s response to court order and
motion to dismiss remaining claims (Doc. 113).
Plaintiff’s response to court order is NOTED, and the motion to dismiss its
claims against Donald Brady and John C. Collins without prejudice is GRANTED.
Therefore, the plaintiff’s claims against said sole remaining defendants hereby are
DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
This action was closed for statistical purposes on May 22, 2012 (Doc. 111)
pending resolution of the bankruptcy cases as to defendants Donald Brady and John
C. Collins.
As the plaintiff’s claims against said defendants have now been dismissed,
the clerk of court is directed to re-open this action, and submit a JS-6 to the

Administrative Office, indicating that this case is closed pursuant to a judgment
entered by this court.1
It is further ORDERED that , although plaintiff submits that the
preliminary injunction entered on March 4, 2011, should remain in full force
and effect with respect to defendants Don Brady Construction, Inc., d/b/a
APEX 3 Construction, Inc., Elizabeth Brady Lindley and Robert Lindley, said
preliminary injunction is hereby DISSOLVED.2
DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of August, 2013.
/s/ Callie V. S. Granade
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1

Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff against Don Brady
Construction Company, Inc. on May 7, 2012 (Doc. 102); plaintiff’s claims against
Linda Brady were dismissed with prejudice by order issued on May 14, 2012 (Doc.
107); and its claims against Robert Lindley & Elizabeth Lindley were dismissed
without prejudice by Order issued on May 23, 2012 (Doc. 111).
2
A preliminary injunction imposed according to the procedures outlined in
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 dissolves ipso facto when a final judgment is
entered in the cause. See Sweeney v. Hanley, 126 F. 97, 99 (9th Cir.1903); see also
United States ex rel. Bergen v. Lawrence, 848 F.2d 1502, 1512 (10th Cir.1988) (“With
the entry of the final judgment, the life of the preliminary injunction came to an
end, and it no longer had a binding effect on any one. The preliminary injunction
was by its very nature interlocutory, tentative and impermanent.” (quoting Madison
Square Garden Boxing, Inc. v. Shavers, 562 F.2d 141, 144 (2d Cir.1977))); Fundicao
Tupy S.A. v. United States, 841 F.2d 1101, 1103 (Fed.Cir.1988) (“[A]lthough a
preliminary injunction is usually not subject to a fixed time limitation, it is ipso
facto dissolved by a dismissal of the complaint or the entry of a final decree in the
cause.”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Cypress Barn, Inc. v. W. Elec. Co., 812
F.2d 1363, 1364 (11th Cir.1987); 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller &
Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2947 (2005). This principle stems
from the very purpose of a preliminary injunction, which is to preserve the status
quo and the rights of the parties until a final judgment issues in the cause. See
Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981)
(“The purpose of a preliminary injunction is merely to preserve the relative
positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held.”); Sierra On–Line,
Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc., 739 F.2d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir.1984) (“A preliminary
injunction ... is not a preliminary adjudication on the merits but rather a device for
preserving the status quo and preventing the irreparable loss of rights before
judgment.”).
U.S. Philips Corp. v. KBC Bank N.V., 590 F.3d 1091, 1093 -1094 (9th Cir. 2010)
2