From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Slay v. Living Centers East, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Northern Division.
Jun 23, 2000
249 B.R. 807 (S.D. Ala. 2000)

Summary

finding that voluntary dismissal under Rule 41 does not violate the automatic stay and that "the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code [a]re in no way infringed by the dismissal by a plaintiff of a case against the bankrupt without any additional cost or risk to the bankrupt or its creditors."

Summary of this case from Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Imagine CBQ, LLC

Opinion


249 B.R. 807 (S.D.Ala. 2000) Burnadene SLAY, Plaintiff, v. LIVING CENTERS EAST, INC., d/b/a Warren Manor Nursing Home, Defendant. No. CIV.A. 00-0253-RV-C. United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Northern Division. June 23, 2000

        James B. McNeill, Jr., Hobbs & Hain, P.C., Selma, AL, for plaintiff.

        ORDER

        VOLLMER, District Judge.

        Presently before the court is plaintiff Burnadene Slay's notice of voluntary dismissal (Doc. 8). Through this notice, Slay states that she has dismissed this action with prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with costs taxed to her.

        Rule 41(a)(1)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by "filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse party of an answer or of a motion for summary judgment." In this case, dismissal appears to be appropriate because defendant Living Centers East, Inc. ("LCE") has filed neither an answer nor a summary judgment motion.

        LCE, however, had already filed for bankruptcy, which raises an interesting question: Does the automatic stay provision set forth at 11 U.S.C. § 362 preclude a plaintiff from voluntarily dismissing an action against the defendant debtor pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i)?

        Another district court has held that a Rule 41 dismissal does not violate the automatic stay because "the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code [a]re in no way infringed by the dismissal by a plaintiff of a case against the bankrupt without any additional cost or risk to the bankrupt or its creditors." Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Celotex Corp., 852 F.Supp. 226, 228 (S.D.N.Y.1994). This court agrees that voluntary dismissals assist rather than interfere with the goals of Chapter 11. Accordingly, this case was properlyDISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE upon the filing of Slay's notice of dismissal.

The CLERK is DIRECTED to send a copy of this order to Bankruptcy Judge Mary F. Walrath and to the Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.


Summaries of

Slay v. Living Centers East, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Northern Division.
Jun 23, 2000
249 B.R. 807 (S.D. Ala. 2000)

finding that voluntary dismissal under Rule 41 does not violate the automatic stay and that "the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code [a]re in no way infringed by the dismissal by a plaintiff of a case against the bankrupt without any additional cost or risk to the bankrupt or its creditors."

Summary of this case from Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. Imagine CBQ, LLC

upholding the voluntary dismissal of the bankrupt with prejudice where the voluntary dismissal assisted rather than interfered with the goals of Chapter 11

Summary of this case from Souza v. Reliable Personnel Services, Inc.

In Slay, the district court decided that a voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i) would “assist rather than interfere with the goals of Chapter 11” and dismissed the action with prejudice.

Summary of this case from Hancock Whitney Bank v. Mason

noting that the filing of bankruptcy "raises an interesting question," which is whether the automatic stay precludes a plaintiff from voluntarily dismissing an action under Rule 41, and finding that it does not because voluntary dismissals "assist rather than interfere with the goals" of bankruptcy

Summary of this case from Chavez v. Miller

In Slay, the district court decided that a voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(i) would "assist rather than interfere with the goals of Chapter 11" and dismissed the action with prejudice. Slay, at 807.

Summary of this case from Hancock Bank v. Miles

In Slay, the district court found that a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) does not violate the automatic stay and that " 'the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code [a]re in no way infringed by the dismissal by a plaintiff of a case against the bankrupt without any additional cost or risk to the bankrupt or its creditors.

Summary of this case from Scott v. Fundamental Provisions, LLC

In Slay, the district court found that a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(i) does not violate the automatic stay and that "the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code [a]re in no way infringed by the dismissal by a plaintiff of a case against the bankrupt without any additional cost or risk to the bankrupt or its creditors.") (quoting Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Celotex Corp., 852 F. Supp. 226, 228 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)) (brackets in original).

Summary of this case from Branch Banking & Trust Co. v. R&T Rentals, LLC

In Slay, the district court found that a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(i) does not violate the automatic stay and that "the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code [a]re in no way infringed by the dismissal by a plaintiff of a case against the bankrupt without any additional cost or risk to the bankrupt or its creditors.") (quoting Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Celotex Corp., 852 F. Supp. 226, 228 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)) (brackets in original).

Summary of this case from Vision Bank v. White

In Slay, the district court found that a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(i) does not violate the automatic stay and that "the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code [a]re in no way infringed by the dismissal by a plaintiff of a case against the bankrupt without any additional cost or risk to the bankrupt or its creditors.") (quoting Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Celotex Corp., 852 F. Supp. 226, 228 (S.D.N.Y. 1994)) (brackets in original).

Summary of this case from Trico Marine Assets, Inc. v. Bender Shipbuilding & Repair Co.

noting that "voluntary dismissals assist rather than interfere with the goals of" bankruptcy and do "not violate the automatic stay"

Summary of this case from Gaddy v. Se Prop. Holdings, LLC
Case details for

Slay v. Living Centers East, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:Burnadene SLAY, Plaintiff, v. LIVING CENTERS EAST, INC., d/b/a Warren…

Court:United States District Court, S.D. Alabama, Northern Division.

Date published: Jun 23, 2000

Citations

249 B.R. 807 (S.D. Ala. 2000)

Citing Cases

Scott v. Fundamental Provisions, LLC

Carver v. Carver, 954 F.2d 1573, 1576 (11th Cir. 1992). "[C]ourts have held that the automatic stay does not…

Sawyer v. Jackson

But defendant has filed for bankruptcy, which raises the question of whether the automatic stay provision of…