ROBERT B. KUGLER, District Judge.
This matter arises out of an insurance coverage dispute. Plaintiff Title Industry Assurance Company, RRG ("TIAC" or "Plaintiff") seeks declaratory judgment from the Court that the terms of the policy it issued to Defendant Park Avenue Abstract, Inc. excludes Park Avenue Abstract and other named Defendants Richard Roney ("Roney") and Donald Luciano ("Luciano") from coverage in certain actions against them. Plaintiff now moves for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2).
TIAC issued an Abstracters, Title Insurance Agents and Escrow Agents Professional Liability Insurance Policy (the "Policy") to Park Avenue Abstract for the May 9, 2012 to May 9, 2013 policy period. (
Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) provides that "[e]xcept as provided in Rule 41(a)(1), an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff's request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper." Whether a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal should be granted is thus within the sound discretion of the court.
The Court finds dismissal appropriate in this case. First and foremost, Plaintiff represents to the Court that it will provide Park Avenue Abstract, Roney and Luciano with defenses in the Underlying Litigation and the NYCBM claim, rendering the declaration sought in the lawsuit moot. (Pl.'s Br. 12.)
The relative infancy of the case also weighs heavily in favor of dismissal. This case has not progressed past the pleading stage. Since Plaintiff filed its Amended Complaint on July 10, 2014, only Defendants Luciano, Susan Bunnell-Jackson, Erik T. Jackson, Olivia Cleaver, James Cole, Jillian Rose Cole, Frederick Graziani, Joanne Henle, Luigi Sellecchia, and Charles Wright have answered. (Doc. Nos. 33, 47.) Defendants Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company and Fidelity National Title Insurance Company filed a motion to dismiss, (Doc. No. 39), which was stayed before any opposition was filed, (Doc. No. 46.) All other pleadings in this case were stayed pending further order of the Court on October 24, 2014. (Doc. No. 52.) Thereafter, two settlement conferences were held on November 21, 2014 and February 20, 2015, followed by a status conference on March 23, 2015. Plaintiffs then filed this motion. (Doc. No. 60.) That is the extent of it. With most of the parties' energies thus far directed to their settlement discussions, it can hardly be said that the cost of a second litigation would be duplicative or excessive. Furthermore, in the absence of any indication otherwise, the Court can only conclude that Defendants have not made significant efforts or incurred significant expenses in preparing for trial. Moreover, Plaintiff was diligent in bringing this motion in the midst of engaging in settlement discussions, apparently due to information just learned during those negotiations. (Pl.'s Br. 12.) The Court thus finds that all factors weigh in favor of granting Plaintiff's motion.
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to dismiss this action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) is