Martin v. Kraal
ORDER. Upon the filing of the 17 Notice of Dismissal, this action was dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Austin Kraal. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 4/13/12. (mnfsl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02611-PAB-MEH
THE ESTATE OF AUSTIN KRAAL, and
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation
authorized to do business in the State of Colorado,
This matter is before the Court on the Notice of Dismissal of Defendant Austin
Kraal [Docket No. 17], in which plaintiff requests dismissal of defendant Austin Kraal
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Despite Rule 41(a)(1)’s reference to the
dismissal of an “action,” the weight of authority permits a dismissal of all claims
pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A) against fewer than all defendants. See Montoya v. FedEx
Ground Package System, Inc., 614 F.3d 145, 148 (5th Cir. 2010); Blaize-Sampeur v.
McDowell, 2007 WL 1958909, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. June 29, 2007) (noting that, although the
Second Circuit had previously stated otherwise, it had “since adopted the approach of
the majority of courts in other circuits – that is, that Rule 41(a) does not require
dismissal of the action in its entirety” and permits dismissal of all claims as to a single
defendant). Upon the filing of the Notice of Dismissal [Docket No. 17], this action was
dismissed without prejudice as to defendant Austin Kraal.
DATED April 13, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge
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?