Stanley v. Lincoln National Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 12

ORDER. Mr. Stanley's 5 stipulation of dismissal was effective without requiring an Order issued by this Court and his claims against Conway Regional were dismissed without prejudice. The Court denies as moot the 7 motion to dismiss. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 6/27/2017. (mef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
CHARLES DAVID STANLEY
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 4:17-cv-270 KGB

LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY; and
CONWAY REGIONAL MEDICAL
CENTER d/b/a CONWAY REGIONAL
HEALTH SYSTEM

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

On May 17, 2017, plaintiff Charles David Stanley filed what was styled as stipulation of
dismissal of separate defendant Conway Regional Medical Center (“Conway Regional”) pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) (Dkt. No. 5). Rule 41(a)(1)(A) provides that the
plaintiff may dismiss an action without court order by filing “(i) a notice of dismissal before the
opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment; or (ii) a stipulation of
dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A).
At the time Mr. Stanley filed his stipulation of dismissal, no counsel of record had appeared
on behalf of Conway Regional. Thus, the filing bore the signature of all parties who had appeared
at the time of filing. Moreover, Conway Regional had served neither an answer nor a motion for
summary judgment.

Mr. Stanley’s stipulation of dismissal was therefore effective without

requiring an Order issued by this Court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). As Mr. Stanley’s stipulation
of dismissal did not indicate otherwise, Mr. Stanley’s claims against Conway Regional were
dismissed without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(B).
Pending before the Court is defendant Conway Regional’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 7).
Mr. Stanley’s prior filing of his stipulation of dismissal effected to dismiss without prejudice

Conway Regional as a party to this action (Dkt. No. 5). Consequently, the Court denies the motion
as moot (Dkt. No. 7).
It is so ordered this the 27th day of June, 2017.

________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge

2