ROCKVILLE AMBULATORY SURGERY, LP v. OLIPHANT

Filing 16

ORDER granting 13 Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice. The case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge James E. Boasberg on 11/27/2012. (lcjeb2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ROCKVILLE AMBULATORY
SURGERY, LP,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 12-397 (JEB)

SCOTT OLIPHANT,
Defendant.

ORDER
Plaintiff filed this action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act on March
13, 2012. It named Scott Oliphant as the Defendant because it believed he was the plan
administrator of The American Chemical Society Welfare Benefit Plan. See Compl. at 1. After
obtaining discovery that demonstrated that Oliphant is not in fact the plan administrator – and
thus not the proper defendant – Plaintiff moved to dismiss the action with prejudice. Defendant
objected, arguing that refiling against the proper administrator would result in increased
litigation expenses. The Court will grant the Motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) permits voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff only
with court approval at this stage of the case. Given that Plaintiff desires to dismiss the matter
with prejudice, the Court inquired of Defendant at the status hearing on November 5, 2012, what
basis the Court had to refuse. Defendant sought an opportunity to contest the Motion, and the
Court asked for authority regarding with-prejudice dismissals. In his Opposition, Defendant
cites two cases, but both of these Fourth Circuit decisions concern without-prejudice dismissals,
and the first ruling actually favored the plaintiff. See Davis v. USX Corp., 819 F.2d 1270 (4th

1

Cir. 1987) (reversing district court for denying plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal without
prejudice); Armstrong v. Frostie Co., 453 F.2d 914, 916 (4th Cir. 1971) (affirming district
court’s denial of plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal without prejudice). He has thus offered nothing
that supports his argument.
Even if the Court did, in certain circumstances, have the authority to reject with-prejudice
dismissal requests, it would not exercise such power here. As Plaintiff correctly points out,
Defendant’s arguments hardly seem those of Oliphant himself, but rather appear to be on behalf
of American Chemical Society. How Oliphant himself could be prejudiced by dismissal here is
never stated.
The Court, therefore, ORDERS that:
1. The Motion is GRANTED; and
2. The case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ James E. Boasberg
JAMES E. BOASBERG
United States District Judge
Date: Nov. 27, 2012

2