Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

TOWNSEND v. AUTOZONE STORES INC., 13-CV-4006. (2014)

Court: District Court, W.D. Arkansas Number: infdco20141009751 Visitors: 7
Filed: Oct. 02, 2014
Latest Update: Oct. 02, 2014
Summary: ORDER SUSAN O. HICKEY, District Judge. Before the Court Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Non-suit Without Prejudice. (ECF No. 26). Defendants have filed a response to the motion (ECF No. 27), and Plaintiff has filed a reply. (ECF No. 29). The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), Plaintiff moves the Court to dismiss his claims against Defendants without prejudice. Defendants do not oppose the dismissal, but they argue that Plain
More

ORDER

SUSAN O. HICKEY, District Judge.

Before the Court Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Non-suit Without Prejudice. (ECF No. 26). Defendants have filed a response to the motion (ECF No. 27), and Plaintiff has filed a reply. (ECF No. 29). The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), Plaintiff moves the Court to dismiss his claims against Defendants without prejudice. Defendants do not oppose the dismissal, but they argue that Plaintiff should be required to pay Defendants' costs for litigating this action if the dismissal is without prejudice.

Upon consideration, the Court finds that the Motion for Voluntary Non-suit Without Prejudice should be and hereby is GRANTED. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

The Court also finds that an award of costs and attorneys fees to Defendants is not warranted. While some discovery has been conducted in this case, no substantive motions, such as motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment, have been filed. Plaintiff states that he intends to re-file this case in state court without any adding any new claims. Plaintiff also states that he will stipulate to the discovery responses and disclosures in this case being used in any newly filed state case. In sum, it does not appear that Defendants will be forced to repeat work already done in this case or incur duplicative litigation costs. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants will not be unduly prejudiced by the dismissal of this action without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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