Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

CORDOVA v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 14-14470. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20160211c61 Visitors: 9
Filed: Feb. 10, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 10, 2016
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT LINDA V. PARKER , District Judge . Plaintiff filed this action on November 21, 2014, challenging Defendant's final decision denying Plaintiff's application for benefits under the Social Security Act. On February 8, 2016, the Court received a communication from Plaintiff, signed and dated February 4, 2016, stating "I don't wish to pursue the case." (ECF No. 20.) The Court construes Plaintiff's communication as a request to voluntarily dismi
More

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT

Plaintiff filed this action on November 21, 2014, challenging Defendant's final decision denying Plaintiff's application for benefits under the Social Security Act. On February 8, 2016, the Court received a communication from Plaintiff, signed and dated February 4, 2016, stating "I don't wish to pursue the case." (ECF No. 20.) The Court construes Plaintiff's communication as a request to voluntarily dismiss his lawsuit pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

Rule 41(a)(2) requires a plaintiff to seek an order of the court or stipulation of the opposing party to voluntarily dismiss an action where, as is the case here, the opposing party has filed an answer or motion for summary judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). The court may grant the request for voluntary dismissal "on terms that the court considers proper." Id. The decision whether to dismiss a complaint under Rule 41(a)(2) lies within the sound discretion of the court. Grover by Grover v. Eli Lilly & Co., 33 F.3d 716, 718 (6th Cir. 1994) (citing Banque de Depots v. Nat'l Bank of Detroit, 491 F.2d 753, 757 (6th Cir. 1974)). In the context of Rule 41(a)(2), an "abuse of discretion is found only where the defendant would suffer `plain legal prejudice' as a result of a dismissal without prejudice." Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Universal-MCA Music Publ'g, Inc., 583 F.3d 948, 953 (6th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). When deciding whether the defendant will suffer "plain legal prejudice," the Sixth Circuit has instructed courts to consider such factors as "the defendant's effort and expense of preparation for trial, excessive delay and lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff in prosecuting the action, insufficient explanation for the need to take a dismissal, and whether a motion for summary judgment has been filed by the defendant." Grover, 33 F.3d at 718 (citation omitted).

Under the circumstances of this case, the Court concludes that it should grant Plaintiff's request to dismiss this action. Defendant has not filed a summary judgment motion and this is not the type of action requiring trial preparation. There has been no delay or lack of diligence on the part of Plaintiff in prosecuting the action. Plaintiff's desire to no longer challenge Defendant's administrative decision is not an insufficient explanation for seeking a dismissal.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED, that Plaintiff's request to voluntarily dismiss this lawsuit is GRANTED and his Complaint is DISMISSED.

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