Mazeau v. SHPS Incorporated et al

Filing 28

ORDER denying 23 Motion to to reinstate the case. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 11/6/2013.(TCA)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Plaintiff,

10
11
12

No. CV13-00797-PHX-DGC

Rebecca D. Mazeau,

ORDER

v.
SHPS, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15

On September 9, 2013, the Court granted Plaintiff Rebecca D. Mazeau’s motion to

16

dismiss without prejudice. Doc. 22. The following day, Plaintiff filed a motion to

17

reinstate the case. Doc. 23. The Court will deny the motion.

18

Defendants SHPS, Carewise Health Inc., and Landacorp, Inc. correctly note in

19

their response that there is no “case” to reopen. Doc. 24 at 2. “[A] suit dismissed

20

without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) leaves the situation the same as if the suit had

21

never been brought in the first place.” Humphreys v. United States, 272 F.2d 411, 412

22

(9th Cir. 1959).

23

Plaintiff’s motion. Accordingly, if the dismissal “leaves the situation the same as if the

24

suit had never been brought,” Plaintiff’s case is no longer before the Court.

As outlined above, this case was dismissed without prejudice on

25

Plaintiff states that she is “now able to move forward with this matter,” but cites

26

no authority that would allow the Court to reinstate a case that she requested to dismiss.

27

Litigants may not voluntarily dismiss and reinstate claims at their leisure. To do so

28

would run afoul of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If Plaintiff wishes to pursue the

1

claims that have been dismissed, she must file a new action.

2

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to reinstate the case (Doc. 23) is denied.

3

Dated this 6th day of November, 2013.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-