Phillips v. Hurley et al

Filing 64

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER re: 60 MOTION for Reconsideration re 59 Memorandum & Order, MOTION to Dismiss Case Without Prejudice filed by Plaintiff Roy Phillips; motion is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr on 5/20/15. (CSG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ROY PHILLIPS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JAMES HURLEY, et al.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13CV1745 SNLJ

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff’s motion to reconsider plaintiff’s
motions to add party defendants and amend first amended complaint, or in the alternative,
for leave to dismiss without prejudice. The motion has been fully briefed and the matter
is ripe for disposition.
The Court has reviewed plaintiff’s arguments on the motion to reconsider and will
decline to reconsider the Court’s ruling on plaintiff’s motion to add party defendants and
amend first amended complaint.1 In that regard, plaintiff’s motion will be denied.
The Court turns to plaintiff’s alternative motion for leave to voluntarily dismiss
this action without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2). Rule 41(a)(2) provides that after a
defendant has served its answer, “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request

1

The only new argument made by plaintiff is that the new CMO entered after new
counsel entered for plaintiff included a deadline for motions to add parties and file
amended pleadings and, as a result, plaintiff believes any such motions should necessarily
be granted if timely filed. This is not the case, just as the deadline for filing dispositive
motions does not necessarily mean a timely motion for summary judgment will be
granted.

only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” “The decision to grant or
deny a plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily dismiss a lawsuit rests upon the sound discretion
of the district court.” Beavers v. Bretherick, 227 Fed.Appx. 518, 520 (8th Cir. 2007)
(citing Cahalan v. Rohan, 423 F.3d 815, 818 (8th Cir. 2005)). “The factors a district
court should consider when deciding whether to allow a voluntary dismissal include
whether the party has presented a proper explanation for its desire to dismiss; whether a
dismissal would result in a waste of judicial time and effort; and whether a dismissal will
prejudice the defendants.” Donner v. Alcoa, Inc., 709 F.3d 694, 697 (8th Cir. 2013)
(citations omitted). “Likewise, a party is not permitted to dismiss merely to escape an
adverse decision nor to seek a more favorable forum.” Id.
Plaintiff candidly admits that he seeks dismissal of this action in order to re-file
the claims in this case along with the new claims set forth in the previously proffered, and
rejected, second amended complaint. Plaintiff is clearly seeking to avoid an adverse
ruling in this matter. Plaintiff acknowledges that he can file a separate action for his new
claims, but argues that it would be prejudicial to all parties and manifestly unjust.
Defendants oppose the dismissal arguing it would be prejudicial as they have put
significant time and effort into this case, which has been pending for a significant time.
Further, defendants argue that plaintiff should not be allowed to dismiss this action
simply as a means to get around that Court’s order denying plaintiff’s motion to amend
and add new defendants.
The Court finds that a dismissal would result in a waste of judicial time and
effort and would be prejudicial to defendants. The prejudice suffered by defendants
2

would be more than the prejudice of the filing of a subsequent lawsuit. It is in the
parties’ interests to have the claims in this case resolved in a timely manner. Further, the
Court finds that plaintiff’s express reason for this dismissal, which is to get around this
Court’s prior ruling, is not a sufficient explanation to warrant a dismissal of these claims.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions to add party defendants and
amend first amended complaint, or in the alternative, for leave to dismiss without
prejudice (ECF #60) is DENIED.
Dated this 20th day of May, 2015.

___________________________________
STEPHEN N. LIMBAUGH, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3