Marshall v. Latin College Prepartory Charter School
Filing
10
OPINION AND ORDER granting 9 Plaintiff's Motion to Dismiss and dismissing this action under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 3/5/18. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
SHAWANIA MARIA MARSHALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:17-cv-3698-WSD
LATIN COLLEGE PREPARATORY
CHARTER SCHOOL,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Shawania Maria Marshall’s
(“Plaintiff”) Motion to Dismiss [9] (“Motion”).
I.
BACKGROUND
On September 28, 2017, Plaintiff’s Complaint [3] against Defendant Latin
College Preparatory Charter School (“Defendant”), was filed on the docket.
On December 18, 2017, Defendant filed its Answer [7] to the Complaint.
On January 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed her Motion, in which she requests to
dismiss this action. Defendant did not file a response to the Motion and it is
deemed unopposed. LR 7.1(B), NDGa.
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Legal Standard
Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent
part, that “[e]xcept as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the
plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper. . . .
Unless the order states otherwise, a dismissal under this paragraph (2) is without
prejudice.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). “The purpose of Rule 41(a)(2) ‘is primarily
to prevent voluntary dismissals which unfairly affect the other side, and to permit
the imposition of curative conditions.’” Arias v. Cameron, 776 F.3d 1262, 1268
(11th Cir. 2015) (quoting McCants v. Ford Motor Co., Inc., 781 F.2d 855, 856
(11th Cir. 1986)).
“A district court enjoys broad discretion in determining whether to allow a
voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2). . . .” Id. “Generally speaking, a motion
for voluntary dismissal should be granted unless the defendant will suffer clear
legal prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit.” Id. In
determining whether a defendant will suffer clear legal prejudice, “the Court
should consider such factors as the defendant’s effort and expense of preparation
for trial, excessive delay and lack of diligence . . . in prosecuting the action,
insufficient explanation for . . . a dismissal, and whether a motion for summary
2
judgment has been filed by the defendant.” Peterson v. Comenity Capital Bank,
No. 6:14-cv-614-Orl-41TBS, 2016 WL 3675457, at *1 (M.D. Fla. May 3, 2016)
(quoting Pezold Air Charters v. Phx. Corp., 192 F.R.D. 721, 728 (M.D. Fla.
2000)); see also Potenberg v. Boston Sci. Corp., 252 F.3d 1253, 1259 n. 5, 1259-60
(11th Cir. 2001) (describing these factors as a guide, rather than a mandatory
checklist, which derives from Pace v. Southern Express Co., 409 F.2d 331, 334
(7th Cir. 1969)). Ultimately, “[t]he court’s task is to ‘weigh the relevant equities
and do justice between the parties.’” Goodwin v. Reynolds, 757 F.3d 1216, 1219
(11th Cir. 2014) (quoting McCants, 781 F.2d at 857).
B.
Analysis
Plaintiff filed her Motion less than four months after this action was filed,
and less than a month after Defendant filed its answer. There is no indication that
the parties have engaged in discovery or any other activity that would result in
Defendant suffering “clear legal prejudice” if this case were to be dismissed
without prejudice. See Arias, 776 F.3d at 1268. Further, Defendant has likely
spent minimal resources for trial preparation, there has not been excessive delay in
this action, and no motion for summary judgment has been filed. Having
considered the Motion, weighed the interests of both parties, and that Defendant
does not oppose Plaintiff’s dismissal request, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion
3
and dismisses this action under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss [9] is
GRANTED. This action is DISMISSED under Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
SO ORDERED this 5th day of March, 2018.
4
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?