Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Eye Centers of Florida, P.A., 2:16-cv-834-FtM-38MRM. (2018)

Court: District Court, M.D. Florida Number: infdco20180608b98 Visitors: 3
Filed: Jun. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 07, 2018
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . Before the Court is Relator Cindy Kopec's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. (Doc. 5). Under 31 U.S.C. 3730(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Kopec voluntarily dismisses this qui tam suit without prejudice and before any Defendant has responded to the Complaint. The United States does not oppose the dismissal and consents to the same. (Doc. 5). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows
More

ORDER1

Before the Court is Relator Cindy Kopec's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice. (Doc. 5). Under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), Kopec voluntarily dismisses this qui tam suit without prejudice and before any Defendant has responded to the Complaint. The United States does not oppose the dismissal and consents to the same. (Doc. 5).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action voluntarily, without a court order, before the opposing party serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This dismissal is effective upon filing and requires no further action by the Court. See Anago Franchising, Inc. v. Shaz, LLC, 677 F.3d 1272, 1278 (11th Cir. 2012). Thus, per Rule 41, the Court dismisses this qui tam case without prejudice.

Accordingly, it is now

ORDERED:

(1) Relator Cindy Kopec's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (Doc. 5) is GRANTED. (2) The above-captioned case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

DONE AND ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These hyperlinks are provided only for users' convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer