Arunachalam v. Fulton Financial Corporation

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM re 11 MOTION to Dismiss Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 41(a)(2). Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 5/28/2014. (nms)

I
!

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 13-1333-RGA

v.
FULTON FINANCIAL CORPORATION,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
By separate order, I am granting Plaintiffs motion to voluntarily dismiss without
prejudice. I am not going to condition the dismissal on the payment of $23,470 in attorney's
fees. I am influenced by the discussion in DuToit v. Strategic Minerals Corp., 136 F.R.D. 82,
87-88 (D .Del. 1991 ), which seems to be directly on point.
There are two considerations that I think suggest the correct result here. First, the later in
the case that dismissal is sought, the greater the justification for conditioning dismissal on
payment of fees or expenses. In this case, dismissal was sought shortly after Defendants
answered the complaint. The answer was filed March 14, 2014; the motion to dismiss was filed
April 23, 2014. No motions were filed, and the docket reflects no activity between March 141h
and April 23rd.
Second, whatever the $23,470 was spent on, in all likelihood, substantially all of it would
have been spent even had Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her lawsuit on November 26, 2013. 1 A

1

Nothing in this Memorandum should be read as approving Plaintiffs conduct in not
dismissing the lawsuit once she surrendered standing to bring it, and in not putting in writing to
the Defendants the true status of this lawsuit.

1
l

new lawsuit, with a Plaintiff who has standing, has been filed. Had the new lawsuit been filed on
or around November 26, 2013, there is no reason to doubt that substantially the same expenses
would have been incurred by the Defendants. I do not expect that they will have to be
redundantly incurred in connection with the new lawsuit.

~

SO ENTERED thisZK_ day of May 2014.