Raulston v. Waste Management of Arkansas Inc
ORDER granting 26 Motion to Dismiss; finding as moot 27 Motion for Summary Judgment. The case is dismissed without prejudic. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 8/16/12. (kpr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CEDRIC L. RAULSTON
OF ARKANSAS, INC.
Raulston moves to voluntarily dismiss his complaint without prejudice.
Waste Management opposes the motion. Although Raulston has not offered
an explanation for his motion, the Court nonetheless finds that the factors
weigh in favor of allowing the dismissal. Hamm v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 187 F.3d 941,950 (8th Cir. 1999).
First, the dismissal will not unduly prejudice Waste Management. Any
materials already generated in this lawsuit can be recycled. Further, the Court
orders that if Raulston refiles, he must pay any duplicative costs that Waste
Management incurs as a result of the refiling. Nor will the dismissal waste
judicial time and effort. The parties have engaged the Court relatively little
thus far- this year-old case has only a few dozen docket entries. And if the
case is refiled, it will be reassigned to this Court. Local Rule 40.1(c).
Timing is also a factor. Raulston filed his motion on the discovery cutoff date, ten days before the dispositive-motions deadline. Document No. 25,
at 1. And at that time, no dispositive motion had been filed. This case is
therefore different than Hamm and Paulucci, where a motion to voluntarily
dismiss was an attempted dodge of an imminent adverse decision. Hamm,
187 F.3d at 950; Paulucci v. City of Duluth, 826 F.2d 780, 782 (8th Cir. 1987).
Lp.st, although the trial date is only three months away, this case is still thirdout on the Court's trial calendar- a fact the Court recently told the parties.
Document No. 23. Whether trial is truly imminent is uncertain, making the
trial timing less weighty in this case.
Considering all the circumstances, the Court concludes that Raulston
may voluntarily dismiss his complaint. Motion, Document No. 26, granted.
FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(2). If Raulston refiles, he must pay any duplicative costs
that Waste Management suffers as a result. The pending motion for summary
judgment, Document No. 27, is denied as moot; and Raulston's complaint is
dismissed without prejudice.
D.P. Marshall Jr.
United States District Judge
4v;pst ;zo, J-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?