VIDEO DISPLAY CORPORATION v. LEXEL IMAGING SYSTEMS, INC., 5:14-CV-403-KKC. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Kentucky
Number: infdco20141210b30
Visitors: 2
Filed: Dec. 09, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 09, 2014
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER KAREN K. CALDWELL, Chief District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (DE 16). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal "before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). None of the defendants has filed an answer or summary judgment. In such circumstances, this c
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER KAREN K. CALDWELL, Chief District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (DE 16). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal "before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). None of the defendants has filed an answer or summary judgment. In such circumstances, this co..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
KAREN K. CALDWELL, Chief District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff's Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (DE 16). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice of dismissal "before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment." Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i). None of the defendants has filed an answer or summary judgment. In such circumstances, this court has "no discretion" to deny the dismissal. Aamot v. Kassel, 1 F.3d 441, 443 (6th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, this matter must be dismissed pursuant to the plaintiff's notice of voluntary dismissal.
The defendants argue that the rule should not apply in this case because there has been some activity. But the rule unambiguously provides for voluntary dismissal where the defendants have not filed an answer or summary judgment motion. The Sixth Circuit has determined that the rule should be taken "at face value" and should be assumed to "mean what it says." Aamot, 1 F.3d at 444 (quoting Carter v. United States, 547 F.2d 258, 259 (5th Cir.1977)). The rule "sanctions no such case-by-case analysis of the amount of effort expended by the defendants." Id.
For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1) all pending motions in the case are deemed MOOT.
2) this action is dismissed without prejudice and shall be STRICKEN FROM THE ACTIVE DOCKET.
Source: Leagle
