Brown v. Swissport et al
OPINION and ORDER (1) Granting Plaintiff's 16 Motion to Amend, (2) Denying as Moot the 8 Motion to Dismiss Filed by Defendants Pam Lesko and Suzanne Hague; and (3) Dismissing Defendants Pam Lesko and Suzanne Hague as Parties to this Lawsuit. Signed by District Judge Linda V. Parker. (RLou)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SHELIA Y. BROWN,
Civil Case No. 17-13525
Honorable Linda V. Parker
SWISSPORT SA, LLC,
PAM LESKO, and SUZANNE HAGUE,
OPINION AND ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
AMEND, (2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY
DEFENDANTS PAM LESKO AND SUZANNE HAGUE; AND (3)
DISMISSING DEFENDANTS PAM LESKO AND SUZANNE HAGUE AS
PARTIES TO THIS LAWSUIT
On October 30, 2017, Plaintiff initiated this pro se lawsuit claiming race
discrimination in violation of federal law. Defendants Suzanne Hague (“Hague”)
and Pam Lesko (“Lesko”) responded to Plaintiff’s Complaint by filing a motion to
dismiss. (ECF No. 8.) Defendant Swissport SA, LLC filed an Answer to the
Complaint. Plaintiff has since filed a motion to dismiss Lesko and Hague as
Defendants. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint reflecting the
removal of these individuals as defendants on March 13, 2018. (ECF No. 18.)
While Defendants filed a response in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No.
17), Defendant Swissport SA, LLC also filed an Answer to the Amended
Complaint. (ECF No. 22.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss
his or her claims without a court order by filing either (i) “a notice of dismissal
before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary
judgment” or (ii) “a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have
appeared.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A). Lesko and Hague have neither answered
Plaintiff’s Complaint nor filed a motion for summary judgment. As such, Plaintiff
is entitled to voluntarily dismiss her claims against them pursuant to Rule 41(a).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) instructs courts to allow a party to
amend its pleading “when justice so requires.” The United States Supreme Court
has instructed that motions to amend should be granted unless the amendment is
brought in bad faith or for dilatory purposes, results in undue delay or prejudice to
the opposing party, or would be futile. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).
There is no indication that Plaintiff’s amendment falls within any of these
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss Defendants
Pam Lesko and Suzanne Hague as Defendants and to amend her complaint to
reflect this dismissal (ECF No. 16) is GRANTED and they are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE as parties to this matter;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed by
Defendants Lesko and Hague (ECF No. 8) is DENIED AS MOOT.
s/ Linda V. Parker
LINDA V. PARKER
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: April 13, 2018
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of
record and/or pro se parties on this date, April 13, 2018, by electronic and/or U.S.
First Class mail.
s/ R. Loury
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?