Harris v. State Farm Insurance Company

Filing 32

ORDER That Plaintiff's Withdrawal/Dismissal (ECF No. 31 ), construed as a motion, is GRANTED; That Plaintiff's Third Claim for Relief against Defendant State Farm Mutual Insurance Company is dismissed without prejudice; and That Defendant's Motion for Determination of Question of Law (ECF 27 ) is GRANTED in that South Dakota law shall apply to the subject action, by Judge Raymond P. Moore on 9/8/2021.(evana, )

Case 1:20-cv-03195-RM-MEH Document 32 Filed 09/08/21 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Raymond P. Moore
Civil Action No. 20-cv-03195-RM-MEH
MICHAEL HARRIS
Plaintiff,
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Defendant.

ORDER:
(1) DISMISSING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE, PLAINTIFF’S THIRD CLAIM FOR
RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY; AND (2) FINDINGS OF LAW PERTAINING TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST AND SECOND CLAIMS FOR RELIEF AGAINST DEFENDANT STATE
FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

THIS MATTER is before the Court on (1) Defendant’s Motion for Determination of
Question of Law (the “Motion”) (ECF 27); and (2) Plaintiff’s Withdrawal of Opposition to
Defendant’s Motion for Determination of Question of Law and Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
Without Prejudice of Plaintiff’s Third Claim for Relief (the “Withdrawal/Dismissal”) (ECF 31).
Aside from withdrawing his opposition to Defendant’s Motion, Plaintiff’s Withdrawal/Dismissal
seeks to voluntarily dismiss one of three claims against Defendant. The Tenth Circuit, however,
has stated this is impermissible. See Gobbo Farms & Orchards v. Pool Chem. Co., 81 F.3d 122,
123 (10th Cir. 1996) (Rule 41 “speaks of dismissal of an action, not just a claim within an action.
[plaintiff] offers no authority, and we have found none, to support its contention that Rule 41(a)

Case 1:20-cv-03195-RM-MEH Document 32 Filed 09/08/21 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2

applies to dismissal of less than all claims in an action.”). Nonetheless, upon consideration of the
Withdrawal/Dismissal, and to promote the “just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every
action and proceeding,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 1, the Court construes the Withdrawal/Dismissal as an
unopposed motion to dismiss, without prejudice, Plaintiff’s Third Claim for Relief. See Dietz v.
Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1888-89 (2016) (noting a district court’s “inherent power” to “manage
its docket and courtroom with a view toward the efficient and expedient resolution of cases”).
And, after considering Defendant’s Motion and Plaintiff’s Withdrawal/Dismissal, and being
otherwise fully advised, the Court finds sufficient grounds to grant the parties relief.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED
(1) That Plaintiff’s Withdrawal/Dismissal (ECF No. 31), construed as a motion, is
GRANTED;
(2) That Plaintiff’s Third Claim for Relief against Defendant State Farm Mutual
Insurance Company is dismissed without prejudice; and
(3) That Defendant’s Motion for Determination of Question of Law (ECF 27) is
GRANTED in that South Dakota law shall apply to the subject action.
DATED this 8th day of September, 2021.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
RAYMOND P. MOORE
United States District Judge

-2-