ARMSTEAD v. KARTERON, 14-cv-13-JPG-DGW. (2014)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20140714920
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jul. 11, 2014
Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Lavette Butler's motion for voluntary dismissal (Doc. 23). In his motion, Butler explained he has a cause of action against co-plaintiff Charles Armstead, Jr. Butler's claims against Armstead would destroy diversity. As such, Butler seeks to voluntarily dismiss this case. Butler represents that Armstead does not object to the motion. A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case after a defendan
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Lavette Butler's motion for voluntary dismissal (Doc. 23). In his motion, Butler explained he has a cause of action against co-plaintiff Charles Armstead, Jr. Butler's claims against Armstead would destroy diversity. As such, Butler seeks to voluntarily dismiss this case. Butler represents that Armstead does not object to the motion. A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case after a defendant..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
J. PHIL GILBERT, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff Lavette Butler's motion for voluntary dismissal (Doc. 23). In his motion, Butler explained he has a cause of action against co-plaintiff Charles Armstead, Jr. Butler's claims against Armstead would destroy diversity. As such, Butler seeks to voluntarily dismiss this case. Butler represents that Armstead does not object to the motion.
A plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case after a defendant has filed an answer only "upon order of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). When considering a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2), the court must determine whether a defendant "will suffer some plain legal prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit." Stern v. Barnett, 452 F.2d 211, 213 (7th Cir. 1971).
Here, Defendants have not responded to Butler's motion. Other than facing a second lawsuit in state court, this Court is not aware of any circumstances that would cause defendants to suffer plain legal prejudice. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Butler's motion (Doc. 23), DISMISSES Butler's claims against Defendants, and VACATES this Court's July 10, 2014 order (Doc. 26). This case remains pending with respect to Armstead's claims against Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
