Williams v. Camden II Operations, LLC, 1:18-cv-1028. (2018)
Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas
Number: infdco20180815a12
Visitors: 9
Filed: Aug. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff Jacqueline Williams' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal as to Separate Defendant Ross M. Ponthie. (ECF No. 26). Defendants have not responded, and their time to do so has passed. See Local Rule 7.2(b). The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration. Plaintiff asks the Court to dismiss her claims against Separate Defendant Ross M. Ponthie without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Rule 41 govern
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY , District Judge . Before the Court is Plaintiff Jacqueline Williams' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal as to Separate Defendant Ross M. Ponthie. (ECF No. 26). Defendants have not responded, and their time to do so has passed. See Local Rule 7.2(b). The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration. Plaintiff asks the Court to dismiss her claims against Separate Defendant Ross M. Ponthie without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Rule 41 governs..
More
ORDER
SUSAN O. HICKEY, District Judge.
Before the Court is Plaintiff Jacqueline Williams' Motion for Voluntary Dismissal as to Separate Defendant Ross M. Ponthie. (ECF No. 26). Defendants have not responded, and their time to do so has passed. See Local Rule 7.2(b). The Court finds the matter ripe for consideration.
Plaintiff asks the Court to dismiss her claims against Separate Defendant Ross M. Ponthie without prejudice, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41. Rule 41 governs the dismissal of actions. Rule 41(a) expressly provides for the voluntary dismissal of an action by the plaintiff or by court order in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2), respectively. Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), an action may be dismissed by court order at the plaintiff's request, on terms the court considers proper. "Voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) should not be granted if a party will be prejudiced by the dismissal." Adams v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 863 F.3d 1069, 1079 (8th Cir. 2017).
Upon consideration, the Court finds that good cause for the motion has been shown. Defendants do not argue that they will be prejudiced by the dismissal of Separate Defendant Ross M. Ponthie, and the Court therefore finds that no prejudice would occur. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 26) is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against Separate Defendant Ross M. Ponthie are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED,
Source: Leagle
