Advance 2000, Inc. v. Matthew Harwick, et al.
Filing
39
DECISION AND ORDER -- IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff's request that this Court dismiss this action is GRANTED. FURTHER, that the action against Christopher Franz is DISMISSED without prejudice. FURTHER, that the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case. SO ORDERED. Signed by William M. Skretny, United States District Judge on 11/10/2020. (JCM)-CLERK TO FOLLOW UP-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ADVANCE 2000, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
16-CV-1037S
MATTHEW HARWICK, et al.,
Defendants.
On December 23, 2016, Defendants removed this case to federal court. (Docket
No. 1.) Plaintiff, Advance 2000, Inc., then filed an amended complaint in this action on
January 24, 2017. (Docket No. 10.) On February 9, 2017, Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Docket No. 15.) After this Court denied Defendants’
motion (Docket No. 22), Plaintiff and two defendants, Matthew Hardwick and Paul
Brisgone, stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s claims against Hardwick
and Brisgone. (Docket No. 36.) After taking no action in this matter for a number of months
and being warned of the possible dismissal of their claim for failure to prosecute, Plaintiff
now informs this Court that it does not intend to continue the action against the remaining
defendant, Christopher Franz. (Docket No. 38.) Plaintiff therefore requests this Court to
dismiss its action against Franz pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 (a)(2).
(Id.)
A plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order either by filing a notice of
dismissal before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment;
or by filing a stipulation of dismissal signed by all parties who have appeared. Fed. R. Civ.
Pr. 41 (a)(1)(A). Otherwise, “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by
court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. Pr. 41 (a)(2). Rule 41
(a)(2) dismissals are at the district court's discretion. D'Alto v. Dahon California, Inc., 100
F.3d 281, 283 (2d Cir. 1996).
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(2) will be allowed “if the
defendant will not be prejudiced thereby.” D'Alto v. Dahon California, Inc., 100 F.3d 281,
283 (2d Cir. 1996) (quoting Wakefield v. Northern Telecom Inc., 769 F.2d 109, 114 (2d
Cir.1985)); see also Jones v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 298 U.S. 1, 19, 56 S.
Ct. 654, 659, 80 L. Ed. 1015 (1936) ( “The general rule is settled for the federal tribunals
that a plaintiff possesses the unqualified right to dismiss his complaint ... unless some
plain legal prejudice will result to the defendant other than the mere prospect of a second
litigation upon the subject matter.”); Brown v. Brown, 343 F.Supp.2d 195, 199 (E.D.N.Y.
2004) (“The primary purpose of Rule 41(a)(2) is to protect the interests of the
defendants.”).
Prejudice to the defendant usually occurs “when ‘the cause has proceeded so far
that the defendant is in a position to demand on the pleadings an opportunity to seek
affirmative relief and he would be prejudiced by being remitted to a separate action.’” Ctr.
for Discovery, Inc. v. D.P., No. 16-CV-3936, 2017 WL 9674514, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. July 17,
2017), report and recommendation adopted in part, No. 16CV3936MKBRER, 2018 WL
1583971 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2018) (citing D'Alto, 100 F.3d at 283).
Here, this Court perceives no prejudice to defendant Franz from the dismissal of
Plaintiff’s action against him. Franz has filed no answer, has brought no counterclaims,
and seeks no affirmative relief from this Court.
Because Plaintiff indicates that it no longer intends to continue the action against
Franz, and because this Court finds that Franz would suffer no prejudice by its dismissal
of this action, this Court will grant Plaintiff’s request to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41 (a)(2).
IT HEREBY IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff’s request that this Court dismiss this action
is GRANTED.
FURTHER, that the action against Christopher Franz is DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
FURTHER, that the Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
November 10, 2020
Buffalo, New York
s/William M. Skretny
WILLIAM M. SKRETNY
United States District Judge
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?