Martin v. Kraal

Filing 20

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, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Judge Philip A. Brimmer Civil Action No. 11-cv-02611-PAB-MEH DELORES MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. AUSTIN KRAAL, THE ESTATE OF AUSTIN KRAAL, and STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the State of Colorado, Defendants. ORDER 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 2

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?