Shukla v. Apple Inc. et al

Filing 119

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: re: #117 MOTION for Reconsideration re; #116 Order of Dismissal filed by Ashu Shukla. Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. In short, Plaintiff's change of heart is not a valid basis for reconsideration. Accordingly, his motion for reconsideration is DENIED as meritless and the case remains closed. As noted in the Court's February 9, 2022 endorsement, the Court retains jurisdiction to decide whether sanctions or a litigation bar should be imposed. See ECF No. 116. at 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 117. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/10/2022) (ama)

Case 1:21-cv-03287-JMF-SDA Document 119 Filed 02/10/22 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X
:
ASHU SHUKLA,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
-v:
:
APPLE INC., et al.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
---------------------------------------------------------------------- X

21-CV-3287 (JMF)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
On February 7, 2022, Plaintiff Ashu Shukla filed a letter stating that he “hereby abandons
this case.” ECF No. 114. Treating the letter as a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule
41(a)(1)(A)(i), the Court endorsed the letter on February 9, 2022, dismissing the case and
directing the Clerk of Court to close it. See ECF No. 116. Earlier today, Plaintiff filed a motion
for reconsideration, explaining that he had a change of heart because, among other things, he
“learned that closure of the case will automatically provide immunity to Deloitte Consulting
LLP.” ECF No. 118, at 2; see also ECF No. 117. 1
Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Plaintiff does not (and could not) take
issue with the Court’s treatment of his letter “abandon[ing]” this case as a notice of voluntary
dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). It is well established that such a notice is “selfexecuting and effective immediately” — even without a court order. Alix v. McKinsey & Co.,
470 F. Supp. 3d 310, 317 (S.D.N.Y. 2020); see, e.g., De Leon v. Marcos, 659 F.3d 1276, 1283
1

Plaintiff’s motion also asserts that “there was no order by the Judge on this matter”
directing the Clerk of Court to close the case. ECF No. 117, at 2. That is immaterial for reasons
discussed below, but, in any event, it is also flat wrong. See ECF No. 116.

Case 1:21-cv-03287-JMF-SDA Document 119 Filed 02/10/22 Page 2 of 2

(10th Cir. 2011) (“A stipulation of dismissal filed under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) or (ii) is selfexecuting and immediately strips the district court of jurisdiction over the merits.”). Moreover,
“‘notices of dismissal filed in conformance with the explicit requirements of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i)
are not subject to vacatur,’ except in certain rare circumstances — not present here — ‘where the
merits have been brought before the court before the filing of either the answer or a motion for
summary judgment.’” Alix, 470 F. Supp. 3d at 317 (quoting Thorp v. Scarne, 599 F.2d 1169,
1176 (2d Cir. 1979), and then Champions League, Inc. v. Big3 Basketball, LLC, No. 17-CV-7389
(LTS) (KHP), 2018 WL 5619973, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2018)).
In short, Plaintiff’s change of heart is not a valid basis for reconsideration. Accordingly,
his motion for reconsideration is DENIED as meritless and the case remains closed. As noted in
the Court’s February 9, 2022 endorsement, the Court retains jurisdiction to decide whether
sanctions or a litigation bar should be imposed. See ECF No. 116. at 2. The Clerk of Court is
directed to terminate ECF No. 117.
SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
JESSE M. FURMAN
United States District Judge

Dated: February 10, 2022
New York, New York

2