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)

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