Caraballo-Melia et al v. Suarez-Dominguez et al

Filing 140

OPINION AND ORDER - DENYING Plaintiffs' 125 Second Motion Requesting Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. Signed by Judge Jaime Pieras, Jr. on 9/24/2009. (mld)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

ANGÉLICA CRISTINA CARABALLO-MELIÁ, et al., Plaintiffs v. ALBERT SUÁREZ-DOMÍNGUEZ, et al., Defendants CIVIL NO. 08-2205 (JP)

OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is Plaintiffs' second motion to voluntarily dismiss the complaint without prejudice (No. 125), as well as Defendant Albert Suárez-Domínguez's ("Suárez") opposition thereto (No. 127) and Defendant Servicios Médicos Universitarios' opposition thereto (No. 129). Article 1802 of Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit pursuant to the Puerto Rico Civil Code alleging medical

malpractice on the part of Defendants.

For the reasons stated

herein, Plaintiffs' motion for dismissal without prejudice is hereby DENIED. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), a Plaintiff may move for voluntarily dismissal of a case by Court order. The purpose of such rule is to freely permit a Plaintiff to dismiss an action, with court approval, as long as there is no prejudice suffered by any other party. Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Authority v. Leith, The district court is responsible

668 F.2d 46, 50 (1st Cir. 1981).

CIVIL NO. 08-2205 (JP)

-2-

under Rule 41 for exercising its discretion to ensure that such prejudice will not occur. (1st Cir. 2000). Doe v. Urohealth Sys., 216 F.3d 157, 160

In deciding whether to grant a plaintiff's motion

under Rule 41(a)(2), courts generally analyze "the defendant's effort and expense of preparation for trial, excessive delay and lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff in prosecuting the action, insufficient explanation for the need to take a dismissal, and the fact that a motion for summary judgment has been filed by the defendant." Id. at 160 (quoting Pace v. Southern Express Co., However, a court need not

409 F.2d 331, 334 (7th Cir. 1969)).

consider each factor or limit its analysis to these factors only. Id. Plaintiffs submit the instant motion requesting a voluntary

dismissal without prejudice because Plaintiffs could not afford to produce their expert witness, Dr. Elliot Goodman, for the Court ordered deposition that was scheduled for August 28, 2009. In the instant case, Defendants efforts in preparing for trial warrant denying the request have for voluntary their dismissal Initial judgment without

prejudice. Conference submitted

Defendants Memoranda, various

prepared two

Scheduling motions,1

prepared expert

summary

reports,

answered

Plaintiffs'

interrogatories, produced the documents requested by Plaintiffs, and filed and responded to numerous motions. Also, assuming the ISC

1.

A l t h o u g h one of them was stricken, Defendant Servicios Médicos Universitarios s t i l l spent time and effort preparing the motion.

CIVIL NO. 08-2205 (JP)

-3-

Order has been complied with, Defendants have had to produce various witnesses for depositions to be taken by Plaintiffs. Thus, the

Court concludes that granting voluntary dismissal at this stage would cause prejudice to Defendants. In addition, Plaintiffs have provided the Court with an

insufficient explanation for the need to dismiss the action without prejudice. At such a late stage in the proceedings, the burden of The

expert witness fees is not a sufficient ground for dismissal.

case is a week from the pretrial conference and less than a month from trial. When Plaintiffs requested leave to change their expert

witness, they should have anticipated the necessary expenses of producing the expert. Plaintiffs cannot come to the Court, either

at this juncture or after Defendant had filed its motion for summary judgment, prejudice requesting because that of the Court dismiss the case without

the

Plaintiffs'

inadequate

planning.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 24th day of September, 2009.

s/Jaime Pieras, Jr. JAIME PIERAS, JR. U.S. SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE