Blitz, Thomas et al v. Monsanto Company et al

Filing 44

ORDER Re: 34 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of Plaintiff's Claims Against Defendant Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, by Plaintiff Thomas Blitz. Signed by District Judge William M. Conley on 11/7/2017. (voc)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN THOMAS BLITZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, ORDER v. 17-cv-473-wmc MONSANTO COMPANY AND SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY, Defendant. The court is in receipt of plaintiff’s notice of voluntary dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against defendant Scotts Miracle-Gro Company. (Dkt. #43.) Although styled as a notice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), the Seventh Circuit has determined that Rule 41(a) is limited to dismissing an “action” -- as in an entire case with the possible exception of a counterclaim under Rule 41(a)(2), not individual claims -- with voluntary dismissal of individual claims or parties falling under Rule 15(a). See Taylor v. Brown, 787 F.3d 851, 857-58 (7th Cir. 2015). As such, the court will construe plaintiff’s notice as a request to amend the complaint to remove this defendant.1 Moreover, having been advised by both defendants that they have no objection, the court will grant that request. While the current complaint will remain the operative pleading unless otherwise amended, like the claims of other named plaintiffs previously dismissed, Blitz’s claims against Scotts Miracle-Gro are DISMISSED and the clerk is ordered to TERMINATE defendant Scotts Miracle-Gro. Entered this 7th day of November, 2017. BY THE COURT: /s/ __________________________________ WILLIAM M. CONLEY District Judge After giving defendants an opportunity to object, the court similarly entered an order dismissing the other named plaintiffs as originally proposed by an earlier Rule 41(a) stipulation. (Dkts. #32, 33.) 1

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?