Summary
construing a similarly deficient notice of voluntary dismissal under Rule 41 as motion to dismiss under Rule 41
Summary of this case from Hardee v. Amerigas Propane, Inc.Opinion
Case No. C-2-01-743
July 8, 2002
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on plaintiff James Wesley Puffenbarger's June 24, 2002 motion for voluntary dismissal with prejudice of defendant Croson/Tepee, LLP, pursuant to the terms of a private settlement agreement.
Because Croson/Tepee, LLP filed an answer on August 3, 2001, plaintiff cannot file a voluntary notice of dismissal. Rule 41(a)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P. Defendant Croson/Tepee, LLP has not signed the request for dismissal; consequently the dismissal is not by stipulation under Rule 41 (a)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.
Although the caption reads "Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice," the body of the "Notice" states that plaintiff "moves the Court for voluntary dismissal with prejudice of Defendant, Croson Tepee, LLP., pursuant to the terms of a private settlement agreement." Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS under Rule 41 (a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P. that this case be DISMISSED with prejudice.
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter JUDGMENT dismissing this case.