From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Connell v. Chevron North Amer. Exploration Prod

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Oct 13, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO: 11-483, SECTION: "A" (5) (E.D. La. Oct. 13, 2011)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO: 11-483, SECTION: "A" (5).

October 13, 2011


ORDER


Before the Court is an Ex Parte Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Defendant, Chevron North America Exploration and Production Company. (Rec. Doc. 25) filed by Plaintiff Sean O'Connell. The Court notes that the motion does not indicate whether Defendant Chevron consents to or opposes the voluntary dismissal.

Plaintiff filed his original complaint (Rec. Doc. 1) on March 1, 2011, alleging that he was severely injured when his boat struck an unmarked structure owned by Defendant. Plaintiff asserts that the collision and resulting injuries were caused by the negligence of Defendant. On March 14, 2011, Defendant filed his answer (Rec. Doc. 3). Defendant subsequently filed answers (Rec. Doc. 9 and 18) to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint (Rec. Doc. 7) and Second Amended Complaint (Rec. Doc. 17).

Via the instant motion, Plaintiff now moves to voluntarily dismiss Defendant Chevron without prejudice. Plaintiff "specifically reserves his rights against all other parties." (Rec. Doc. 25). Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an action may be dismissed by court order upon request of the plaintiff "on terms that the court considers proper." Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2). "[A]s a general rule, motions for voluntary dismissal should be freely granted unless the non-moving party will suffer some plain legal prejudice other than the mere prospect of a second lawsuit." Elbaor v. Tripath Imaging, Inc., 279 F.3d 314, 317 (5th Cir. 2002). "Typical examples of such prejudice occur when a party proposes to dismiss the case at a late stage of pretrial proceedings, or seeks to avoid an imminent adverse ruling." In re FEMA Trailer Formaldahyde Prods. Liab. Litig., 628 F.3d 157, 163 (5th Cir. 2010).

The opposing party has filed several answers in this case, which means that leave of court is required in order for Plaintiff to dismiss Defendant. It is not clear from Plaintiff's motion that Defendant consents to Plaintiff's request that his claims be dismissed without prejudice, and that Plaintiff is not proposing to dismiss the case in order to avoid an imminent adverse ruling. Defendant should have the opportunity to consent to or file an opposition to the motion.

Accordingly;

IT IS ORDERED that the Ex Parte Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Defendant, Chevron North America Exploration and Production Company. (Rec. Doc. 25) is DENIED as filed. Plaintiff is to contact Defendant to see if Defendant will consent to a dismissal without prejudice. If Defendant does not consent, then Plaintiff must re-file the motion as a contested motion and properly set it for hearing pursuant to the local rules.

This 6th day of October 2011.


Summaries of

O'Connell v. Chevron North Amer. Exploration Prod

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Oct 13, 2011
CIVIL ACTION NO: 11-483, SECTION: "A" (5) (E.D. La. Oct. 13, 2011)
Case details for

O'Connell v. Chevron North Amer. Exploration Prod

Case Details

Full title:SEAN O'CONNELL v. CHEVRON NORTH AMERICAN EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION COMPANY

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana

Date published: Oct 13, 2011

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO: 11-483, SECTION: "A" (5) (E.D. La. Oct. 13, 2011)