Safeway Insurance Company v. Epps et al
ORDER granting 24 Motion to Dismiss Counterclaim of Epps and Smith with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Debra M. Brown on 1/5/17. (rel)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SAFEWAY INSURANCE COMPANY
FLICE EPPS and SARAH SMITH,
a minor, by and through her parent and
next friend, Flice Epps
ORDER DISMISSING COUNTERCLAIM
On January 4, 2017, Safeway Insurance Company (“Safeway”) filed a “Joint Motion of
Dismissal – Partial” signed by its counsel and counsel for Flice Epps and Sarah Smith. Doc.
#24. In the joint motion, the parties request an order dismissing with prejudice the counterclaim1
filed against Safeway on August 8 2016, by Epps and Smith as part of their response to
Safeway’s amended complaint. As grounds, the parties assert that, after having been represented
by counsel of their own choosing and having the opportunity to conduct discovery, Epps and
Smith wish to dismiss their counterclaim and Safeway does not object, and that “[i]t is agreed by
the parties that dismissal of the counterclaim shall not affect the right of [Safeway] to proceed
with its action for declaratory judgment.” Id. Upon consideration of the grounds stated in the
motion and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41,2 the joint motion  is GRANTED. The
counterclaim of Epps and Smith is DISMISSED with prejudice, and such dismissal shall not
affect Safeway’s right to proceed with its request for declaratory judgment in this action.
SO ORDERED, this 5th day of January, 2017.
/s/ Debra M. Brown
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
See Doc. #11 at 5–11. Safeway answered the counterclaim on August 16, 2016. Doc. #13.
Rule 41(a)(2) provides that “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that
the court considers proper,” which under subsection (c) of the rule, “applies to a dismissal of any counterclaim ….”
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?